The December 4 seminar is titled “Japan’s Economic Rise and America’s Wartime Fears”.

America’s wartime fears of Japan were primarily caused by the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. Another cause was the 1937 invasion of China that was well-publicized by the American “China lobby”, Henry Luce and Chiang Kai-Shek. The China lobby sought to raise support for the Chinese war against Imperial Japan.

Since the 1960s, American fears of Japan have steadily declined except for the trade war era of the mid 1980s-1990s. In 2021, Pew Research reports that 84% of Americans have a positive view of Japan.

While the wartime fears of Japan have evaporated, a new “China threat” has emerged that is causing considerable fear. In 2021, Pew reports that 79% of Americans have unfavorable views of China.

The wartime fears of Japan resulted in some 120,000 Japanese citizens and Japanese-American citizens being incarcerated. The current era is witnessing a large and sustained increase in hate crimes targeting all Asians. This is why I ask “Have wartime fears of Japan been replaced by fears of all Chinese/Asians today?”

The 1940s Japan fears resulted in mass incarceration of US citizens. Are current fears of the “China threat” resulting in the increased illegal actions against Asians that vary from random street violence to the targeting of ethnic-Chinese researchers by the FBI, DOJ, and other federal agencies? I think so, and the references support this view. Think about the evolution of the perceived “China threat” and actions from Wen Ho Lee to Meng Wanzhou. Is the US simply scapegoating Asians because of the unspecified fear?

The attached PowerPoint PDF contains polling data from Pew and Nielsen on American perceptions of Japan and China. The data show there is little Japan fear today, but there is certainly a fear or concern about China.

How to use polling data in K-12 classrooms

I have used polling data in my classes. I show the polling data, review the importance of the topic, and then ask students where they stand on the issues. This teaches about broad public opinion, current politics, and helps students form their own opinions. In my experience, students understand and like polling data far better than academic references.

References

https://china.usc.edu/calendar/hate-virus-combatting-prejudice-against-asian-americans https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7wx9VoZBSA

https://china.usc.edu/calendar/pandemic-panic-surging-violence-against-asian-americans https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKtLJ0w8F7I

https://china.usc.edu/calendar/xiaoxing-xi-scientific-espionage-open-exchange-and-american-competitiveness https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apNUglq3A3U

One-third of Asian Americans fear threats, physical attacks and most say violence against them is rising. Pew Research. April 21, 2021. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/21/one-third-of-asian-americans-fear-threats-physical-attacks-and-most-say-violence-against-them-is-rising/

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2021/06/30/most-americans-have-cold-views-of-china-heres-what-they-think-about-china-in-their-own-words/

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/12/americans-views-of-asia-pacific-nations-have-not-changed-since-2018-with-the-exception-of-china/

Time to End the U.S. Justice Department’s China Initiative: A misguided effort at countering espionage needs a serious rethink. Margaret K. Lewis, Professor of law at Seton Hall University. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UG_Y5QWLB0c&t=12s

Return of McCarthyism (Video)? United States Heartland China Association. https://usheartlandchina.org/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UG_Y5QWLB0c&t=12s

https://www.justice.gov/nsd/information-about-department-justice-s-china-initiative-and-compilation-china-related

FDR's order 9066 allowed any person or group to be removed from any specified areas and interned. It did not only target Japanese.

The DENSHO.org encyclopedia note that “In addition to the forced removal of Japanese Americans for purposes of confinement in War Relocation Authority (WRA) camps, the Justice Department oversaw the internment of more than thirty-one thousand civilians during the Second World War. This total included approximately 11,500 people of German ancestry and 3000 people of Italian ancestry, many of whom were United States citizens.”

Martin Niemöller’s 1946 Reflections on Persecution

The history of WW2 incarceration of ethnic groups, with limited public opposition and widespread support, reminds me of the prose by the German pastor Martin Niemöller. In 1946, he reflected on the silence of the German intellectuals in face of rising persecution. He wrote:

First, they came for the communists and I did not speak out because I was not a communist

Then they came for the socialists and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist

Then they came for the unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me

What would Martin Niemöller say in the USA in 2021?

First, they came for the Natives.  I did not speak out because I was not one

Then, they came for the Latinos. I did not speak out because I was not one

Then, they came for the Chinese immigrants. I did not speak out because I was not one

Then, they came for the Japanese immigrants. I did not speak out because I was not one

Then they came for Muslims. I did not speak out because I was not one

Then they came for some professors. I did not speak out because I was not one

Then they came for some students and I did not speak out because I was not one

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me

************

Might this be a way to teach students about the dangers of ethnic persecution & totalitarian government overreach?

References

https://encyclopedia.densho.org/German_and_Italian_detainees/

Enemies among Us: The Relocation, Internment, and Repatriation of German, Italian, and Japanese Americans during the Second World War. John E. Schmitz, 2021

DeStasi, Lawrence, ed. Una Storia Segreta: The Secret History of Italian American Internment and Evacuation During World War II. Berkeley: Heyday Books, 2001.

Fox, Stephen. America's Invisible Gulag: A Biography of German American Internment and Exclusion in World War II. New York: Peter Lang, 2000.

———. Uncivil Liberties: Italian Americans Under Siege During World War II. Parkland, FL: Universal Publishers, 2000.

Krammer, Arnold. Undue Process: The Untold Story of America's German Alien Internees. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1997.

Martin Niemöller. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

Short answer. Self-defense and national honor.

From a Japanese perspective, a more important question would be “Why did the United States cut off oil supplies to Japan in mid-1941 knowing that this would undermine Japan’s economic and military power, likely leading to war?” Since Japan then relied on the US for 80% of its oil imports, the termination of US oil exports was an act of economic warfare that could not be tolerated.

Japan’s Actions Post-1850 Reflect Domestic Response to Foreign Threats

Under the Tokugawa Shogunate (1603-1868) Japan practiced national self-isolation and severely restricted international trade and travel. Despite closing its doors to trade, Japan was nonetheless aware of the increasing foreign military presence in Asia from 13 Western nations that included Great Britain, the USA, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and Russia. All of these nations had imposed unequal treaties on China.

After Commodore Perry visited Tokyo in 1853-54 to force Japan to open trade with the United States, Japan realized that it must either modernize its economy and strengthen its military or risk the national humiliation and exploitation that China was experiencing during the Century of Humiliation (1839-1949). Faced with foreign aggression lead by the US, the desire for national self-strengthening was recognized and the result was the 1868 Meiji Restoration.

Lacking the natural resources to modernize – especially oil, coal, iron ore and other metals – Japan needed to expand its economic access and decided to follow the Western imperialist model. This resulted in the creation of the Empire of Japan and the subsequent annexation of The Ryuku Kingdom, Korea, Taiwan, and Manchuria, followed by the 1937 invasion of China.   

The Japan-USA Conflict

Japan relied on imported oil and steel from the USA to modernize its economy and build up its military. The invasion of Manchuria and China would not have been possible without these critical supplies.

In early 1940, the US Navy Pacific Fleet base was moved from California to Hawaii in response to Japan’s perceived military threat as well as the American desire to pursue manifest destiny westward across the Pacific Ocean. The US also restricted oil exports to Japan in 1940. In the summer of 1941, US government officials completely stopped oil exports to Japan.

After the US stopped oil exports to Japan in the summer of 1941, Japan faced the hard choice of either retreating from its Asian empire or fighting the Western powers and the United States. Refusing to abandon its empire and be humiliated meant that the only other option was attacking the West and Western interests to preserve access to oil and raw materials to fuel its military & economy.   

Facing a shrinking supply of oil in December 1941, and fully aware that its empire needed oil to survive, Japan launched its invasions of Malaysia, Hong Kong, Singapore, and the Dutch East Indies to obtain access to oil and to expand its empire.

Japan attacked US Navy ships at Pearl Harbor to prevent the US navy from limiting its military expansion in Asia. Japan never targeted the US civilian population or invaded the US. From this perspective, Japan did not choose to fight the USA: Japan chose to maintain its empire and preserve its national honor which required deterring the USA from its sphere of power and influence.

As Jeffrey Record concludes in his paper published by the US Army War College, “U.S. attempts to deter Japanese expansion into the Southwestern Pacific via the imposition of harsh economic sanctions…all failed because the United States insisted that Japan evacuate both Indochina and China as the price for a restoration of U.S. trade. The United States demanded, in effect, that Japan abandon its empire, and by extension its aspiration to become a great power, and submit to the economic dominion of the United States—something no self-respecting Japanese leader could accept.”

Japan did not “choose to fight the United States”. The US chose to impose crippling economic sanctions on Japan that threatened its national survival. After Pearl Harbor, the USA declared war on Japan and took the fight to Asia. This resulted in Japan’s defeat and subsequent de-facto military colonization by the USA. The effect of the victory over Japan was to extend the scope of US ‘manifest destiny’ and military power across the Pacific Ocean to Tokyo Bay.

References

Japan’s Decision for War In 1941: Some Enduring Lessons. Jeffrey Record, 2009. https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/2009/pubs/japans-decision-for-war-in-1941-some-enduring-lessons/

http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/japan_1900_power.htm

James Bradley books: The Imperial Cruise, Flags of Our Fathers, The China Mirage. James Bradley’s father is one of the soldiers that raised the American Flag on Iwo Jima in 1945, and James has been writing about the Pacific War to commemorate his father and all that died in East Asia over the 1905-1953 period. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2%80%93United_States_relations

I really liked the speaker's presentations today! Amazing!

I have many Asian-American students, and they are usually second, third, or fourth generation. Susan Kamei's lecture on the Japanese-American interment camps. Many of these students, and others not Asian-American, want to know more about not only American history, Japanese history, and Asian-American history. Because of this interest, I will talk about some ideas I had after listening to Kamei's lecture.

I start lessons by highlighting culture and putting that at the hook of interest to get student intenterest. I found this wonderful teacher created resource with shows the history of this time through political cartoons of the time: https://japaneseinternmentlp.weebly.com/political-cartoon.html

I think this would be a great starting point, and you can use it cross-curricular as well:

• English = meaning of the words used
• History = the information about the time and events
• Art = political cartoon critique

This site has several images that could be used. I want to highlight the attached image.

I would like to point out a few parts of the cartoon to teach students and challenge them to think critically:

• What do you notice about the faces drawn on the bugs?
• What happens when you depict a person as not a human but a bug? What kinds of feelings to you get when you think of bugs? Why might the author have chosen bugs to depict Japanese-Americans?
• What is the meaning of the word "plague"?
• Where is this political cartoon set (which state)? Why does this have to do with the internment (where were the camps set up)?
• The casual tone of the picket sign holder invites a friendly connection with the reader due to the tone. Contast this with the phrases "plague of japanese beetles"
• What do you see Uncle Sam doing? (leaping into action) (catching the beetles) What do you see when you compare this characterization of the American Government with what the government actual did during this time. Does this political cartoon cast the actions in a different light? (looking heroic stepping in to help the picketors, actually not catching bugs but moving actual people).

These are just a few thoughts I had. Do you have any suggestions on changes or more prompts? Thanks for reading!

Kayla Kolean

Captives in our own country,  My family’s story helps shape my view of the incarceration of Japanese Americans. 

On Sunday, Dec. 7, 1941, Aiko Yoshinaga, a 17-year-old Los Angeles High School student, was headed home from a party with classmates when she heard a shocking radio report: Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor. Even at her young age, Aiko immediately realized that with a U.S. declaration of war against Japan, her Japanese immigrant parents, legally precluded from becoming naturalized citizens, would not just be considered aliens — they would be enemy aliens.

An American-born citizen, Aiko didn’t think she had cause to be concerned. She thought she’d be protected by the U.S. Constitution. She, along with my grandparents and parents, would soon find out how wrong she was. My father, then a 14-year-old freshman at Huntington Beach Union High School, later recalled: “People couldn’t or wouldn’t make the distinction between Americans who happened to have Japanese parents and people from Japan.” The Pearl Harbor attack intensified anti-Japanese sentiments that had existed since the first wave of immigrants from Japan arrived in the 1880s. Against the backdrop of decades of discriminatory policies, the Japanese American community was vulnerable as an appalled and angry nation considered anyone who looked like the enemy to be the enemy.

Even before the attack, high-ranking officials in President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration and military leaders assumed that the Issei, or first-generation immigrants, as well as the Nisei, their American-born children, would be disloyal to U.S. interests in the event of war, despite intelligence reports that refuted those claims. Lt. Gen. John L. DeWitt, who would lead the Western Defense Command during the war, publicly said, “A Jap’s a Jap — it makes no difference whether he is an American citizen or not.” Paul Webb, then principal of Los Angeles High, determined that Aiko and the 14 other Nisei seniors would not be given their diplomas because “your people bombed Pearl Harbor.” By January 1942, Los Angeles Mayor Fletcher Bowron was among the West Coast mayors leading a racist chorus to remove the Japanese residents who lived in their areas.

Officials from the League of California Cities, heads of major industries — especially defense contractors and major agriculture companies — and journalists joined in. U.S. Rep. Leland M. Ford, whose district included Santa Monica, was the first member of Congress to lobby for the mass incarceration of “all Japanese, whether citizens or not.” He even advocated that they could prove they were truly loyal and “patriotic” by willingly placing themselves in detention. On Feb. 19, 1942, little more than 10 weeks after the Pearl Harbor attack, Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, putting in motion the incarceration of about 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry — two-thirds of whom were Nisei American citizens — as a “military necessity.”Soldiers armed with guns and bayonets removed men, women and children from their homes in California, Oregon, Washington and Arizona. On short notice, they had to leave behind their businesses, farms, jobs, educations, even their pets. They were allowed to take only what they could carry. They had to sell, store or abandon the rest of their possessions. My father’s farming family had to walk away from several acres of celery that was ready to harvest.

My father, Hiroshi Kamei, would call it “my family’s greatest economic loss.” That spring Japanese Americans were sent to temporary detention facilities euphemistically called “assembly centers,” including one at the Santa Anita racetrack in Arcadia. After my mother, Tami Kurose, then 14, and her parents arrived there, they considered themselves fortunate to be assigned to live in barracks and not in horse stalls that reeked of manure. Later that summer, incarcerated Japanese Americans were transferred to one of 10 newly constructed sites, in desolate locations, under the jurisdiction of the War Relocation Authority. When Aiko realized how isolated the Manzanar prison camp was in the Sierra Nevada, she said she thought, “This is where they’re gonna shoot us.” She feared that “nobody would know the difference” if the government killed them all there. Aiko, my parents and their families, and the other incarcerated Japanese Americans would remain behind barbed wire, enduring harsh conditions, for the duration of the war.

Even as the war was nearing an end in 1944, FDR refused to allow the so-called camps to close until after he won reelection that November. For decades after the war, those who had been incarcerated focused on rebuilding their lives and suppressed their feelings about their wrongful imprisonment. My father recalled being “too busy” trying to recover from the incarceration’s devastating impact to be bitter. In the late 1960s, while living in New York, Aiko became involved in the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements, which questioned government actions. Inspired by the activism of others, she became motivated to investigate the causes of the incarceration. Using research techniques she developed, and working with lawyer and law professor Peter Irons, Aiko began combing through thousands of documents in the National Archives in the late 1970s. She would play a crucial role in documenting governmental misconduct that included never having a factual basis for suspecting Japanese Americans of disloyalty, knowingly perpetuating lies to justify the incarceration and covering up attempts by Justice Department officials to tell the truth.

The evidence formed the basis of the 1983 report “Personal Justice Denied,” the official government study into the imprisonment of people of Japanese ancestry during World War II. It concluded that Executive Order 9066 was not justified by military necessity, but resulted from racial prejudice, war hysteria and a failure of political leadership. Its recommendations — an official apology to those who had been incarcerated and token reparations for those who were still alive — were not made until 1988, when the Civil Liberties Act was passed. In 1989, Los Angeles High sought to make amends, issuing Aiko and her Nisei classmates the diplomas they were denied in 1942. For her role in setting the record straight, the Japanese American National Museum honored Aiko with its Award of Excellence at its April 2018 gala, recognizing her service to democracy. Three months later, she died at the age of 93.

Today, as violence against Asian Americans has surged in what the California attorney general has called “an epidemic of hate,” the 80th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack is cause for anxiety among those of us who are viewed with suspicion or are not thought of as “American enough” due to our heritage and appearance. President George W. Bush once said about the incarceration, “Sometimes we lose our soul as a nation. The notion of ‘all equal under God’ sometimes disappears.” For the formerly incarcerated and their descendants, the annual observances of the Pearl Harbor attack provoke complex feelings. They have joined in honoring those who lost their lives during the Dec. 7 attack and in paying tribute to the Nisei soldiers who went on to valiantly demonstrate in combat the loyalty of Japanese Americans. But each Dec. 7 for the rest of his life, my father, who died at 79 in 2007, would brace for the anti-Japanese backlash that invariably occurred around each anniversary. He was always eager to see that date come and go.

Susan H. Kamei is a lecturer in the USC Dornsife department of history. She is author of “When Can We Go Back to America? Voices of Japanese American Incarceration during World War II."

I invited Prof. Kamei to speak because I admire her work as an attorney and as a scholar. I thought her presentation was outstanding and I learned a lot from it. I hope that many will utilize her op-ed and her book with their students. I agree with what she's said and written. But even if I didn't, it is vital to listen to what she's got to say. One may not agree with any or all of it, but no one can be permitted to stop it by labelling it as propaganda. It is fine to oppose her conclusions, but that opposition must be articulated in a respectful way at an appropriate time.

Race may not have been the only motivating factor behind the incarceration of 120,000 people, without charge or any form of due process. But two things are abundately clear to me:

1. Racism undergird the many formal and informal restrictions already imposed on people of Chinese and Japanese ancestry at the federal and local levels. It permeated the thinking of most in power and was widespread among the general public. This is not speculation on my part, but readily found in the historical record. (Examine, for example, the exclusion act and the so-called "gentlemen's agreement" regarding the migration of Chinese and Japanese to the U.S. Examine the career and campaigns of James Phelan, SF mayor and CA senator.)

2. Racist assumptions powered the enforcement of the policy. And the efforts to represent it in more benign terms are well-known. Published photographs and stories sought to portray life in the camps as something other than a prison experience. You may find this Duke University collection and discussion of interest. Sports, Boy Scout troops and school yearbooks did make life a bit better, but the fundamental reality is that people were imprisoned because of their Japanese heritage.

The abuse of people of Japanese descent was accompanied by a legal change to the benefit of Chinese. Because China was an ally in the war, in late 1943 the US began to legally permit Chinese to immigrate to the U.S. and some of those already here to become naturalized citizens. It took wartime need to change official hostility to Chinese migration and citizenship. It is this new exception that reminds us of the underlying racism.

There is no question that the attack on Pearl Harbor generated great fear. Some of that fear stemmed from racist beliefs that people of Japanese descent were not and could not be "real" Americans. People in power wanted to be seen as protecting the U.S. and played on racist assumptions in identifying people of Japanese ancestry as potential threats. In this instance, racism made the policy possible and drove its implementation. We know, though, that racism isn't the only things that can produce discrimination. Anti-German policies and practices exploded during World War I. At various times there was hostility towards Irish immigrants and those from southern Europe. People are often suspicious of the unfamiliar and that can produce legal or extralegal discrimination.

For me the most pernicious human habit (it isn't uniquely American) is to focus on differences among us, beginning with easiest to spot such as how one looks. The institutionalized hostility towards people of Japanese ancestry didn't start with Pearl Harbor. Nor did it end with the emptying of the camps. Some may wonder why people of Asian ancestry might be upset when someone they've never talked with starts a conversation with "what country are you from?" or "what are you?" It's offensive because the assumption is that you couldn't have been from the US. And remember, please, two-thirds of those imprisoned were from the US. Rounded up because of racist assumptions they couldn't be trusted.

Race may not have been the only thing policy makers considered, but it undergird their assumptions and helped them sell it to others. Not everyone went along with racist policies or practices. Lon Kurashige, a USC historian, writes of Asians and others who fought back in his excellent Two Faces of Exclusion.

Those teaching about the battle for civil rights will naturally address the struggle over segregation. The legality of segregation was shattered by Brown vs Board of Education in 1954 (and it had been chipped away at before then). Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren is credited with pulling together his eight colleagues for a unamious repubdiation of the doctrine of "separate but equal." They found that separate could never be equal. One of Warren's former clerks argues that it was Warren's slow realization that the incarceration of people of Japanese descent was fundamentally racist and unjust that helped him reach the Brown decision. Warren was CA's attorney general when incarceration began and was subsequently CA governor as it continued. Click here for that 1979 article which lays out how even a fellow who became known as a defender of civil rights had been a prisoner of racist thinking. And that thinking meant he defended the incarceration. In 1942 he described Japanese in California as a strategic weakness for the U.S. But he later came to described his defense of what he called relocation as a tragic blunder.

I will respond, at some length, here, to professor Clay's many-times repeated ad hominem attacks on me, and especially to his repeated mischaracterizations of anti-Asian racism as it exists today, and as it existed in the context of WWII especially on the West Coast of North America...In particular, I'm focusing on what Clay has written above, what happened in Kamei's seminar, and also referring to some recent personal email exchanges...

(1) First, Clay opens his commentary by simply praising professor Kamei's work as "outstanding," without EVER really getting around to saying exactly WHY it was so outstanding and WHAT was so outstanding about it.  That's fine- but also and euqally- that's the difficulty.  Certainly, I enjoy Clay's infectious positive West-Coast thinking !- I can only wish he would direct more of it my way in equal measure as he does in praising professor Kamei !-but we are not really here, as academics, as historians, or as Teachers , anyway, to engage in such unsubstantiated, uncritical,  cheerleading and fanfare.  Indeed, the USC-US-CHina Institue has requested 30 ANALYTIC posts from participants in this seminar ! So let's just all be a bit more ANALYTIC about this now !  I wish Clay would have said WHAT was so outstanding, precisely and analytically, accordingly, about Kamei's presentation, which also probably would have meant acknowledging her presentations' many glaringly obvious shortcomings too... I am NOT here to say that there is NOTHING valuable in what Kamei presented On December the 4th- obviously, there was some material there we can all learn from and consider using ourselves as Teachers and in life too.  But here's the deal: Kamei's presentation (a) lacked organizing structure, and (b) lacked a clear thesis from its beginning- its (c)  audio quality was rather impoverished too- those are just mainly FACTS and let's start by being honest about them. The main reason I objected, though,  only once, during the seminar by Kamei was mainly the following: (d) Kamei did not present both sides of the issue AT ALL in her framing/narrative and instead almost proceeded to present a pornographic, anecdotal, expose.  I am NOT exxaggerating in saying that but rather it was her, professor Kamei, that was clearly exxagerating-and that's the trouble if we are seriously talking about any branch of historical analysis or investigation or indeed classroom practices. Especially, the story of security guards pointing rifles at interned Japanese children told by Kamei- that story's purpose or fairness was pretty unclear and vague, to me, as she kept hammering home the racism theme throughout the first twenty minutes or so of her presentation. To be clear, sometime repetition is a valuable rhetorical move, and sometimes it isn't-let's be honest both ways about that, and recognize that reasonable people can differ in such judgements). Most importantly, I worry that Kamei gravely misrepresented the historical issues, and ignored ANY evidence (because there is a lot of it)  which conflicted with her narrative frame, just as professor Clay's subsequent commentary tends to do similarly and one-sidedly.  I assume Kamei has read more than me on her subject: hence, my great surprise that she didn't mention ANY of the abundant scholarship which is in tension with the story she was portraying in her seminar.  I probably should not have interrupted the speaker, professor Kamei,  as I did-perhaps you are surprised to see me apologize-   that's why I have since apologized, quite  sincerely and thoughtfully, and that's mainly why I left the seminar that day too.  But let's be clear about this too: I had GOOD reason to make was ENTIRELY a GOOD-FAITH, and CONCISE, and LEARNED, objection, in the seminar that day, based only on my own learning and concern regarding the speaker's subject. I was not having an ego-trip or being unusually impatient-indeed I WAS listening actively and that's WHY I objected. Therefore, overal,l while I agree that I should have raised my digital hand and waited more, my use of the term PROPAGANDA was not entirely off-target that day at all to describe what Kamei and Clay are up to.  And it's debatebale and worth considering why Clay should lay SO MUCH emphasis on my error, which I can concede was a MINOR error (in his view and also to some extent in my view).

(2) Clay's second paragraph above- (much like Kamei's presentation)- discusses the racist historical background of the West Coast of North America of much of the XXth-century.  I have repeatedly addressed this point in emails to Clay in indeed in the Zoom chat direclty in that day's seminar BEFORE and AFTER I voiced my objection.  Clay and I partly agree and partly disagree, and it's a matter of analytical clarity and of emphasis.  Yes, Clay, it's important to know about this racist background you speak so frequently of in the context of WWII and even (to a MUCH lesser extent) today.  This background of racism-here is where anyone would agree with Clay and Kamei- IS relevant to understanding the Japanese internments in Canada and the United States in WWII. BUT  !  The central historical issue is NOT about the mere fact that this racist background existed at the time.  The central issue debated by Historians is about whether the INTERNMENT itself was racially motivated-that's what scholars debate about whereas NOONE ever debates the fact that background structural racism existed at that time and place.   A plausible answer to the central historical question, based on a careful analysis of the diplomatic history of the period, is that the Japanese internment was 'NOT really racist.'  THAT's what 6 out of 9 justices of the Supreme Court concluded CAREFULLY at the time, and much of that verdict has stood the test and scrutiny of time (despite the article about Earl Warren Clay kindly shared, and thanks for that one, Clay).    I have tried to carefully explain this basic distinction (between background structural racism at the time and the actual motivations of Japanese internment) to Clay in two personal emails recently, and he has tended to downplay my feedback while 'partly' acknowledging it.  (See also my short comment on Antoinette's post above where I haveprovided a much more useful and balanced discussion of the central historical issue than Kamei's one-sided, albeit interesting, account did).. In short: I am open-minded and prepared to have a HISTORICAL DEBATE based on evidence on this issue with anyone, any time, any where. ANd let's start with this: FDR himself probably was not particulary of anti-Asian animus, and nor were many of his advisors who helped formulate this policy-a policy which was anyway a temporary expediency annnulled at the conclusion of the war, a policy which survived a a Supreme Court challenge with a 6-3 majority.  This was precisely around the time when the United States did so much to help rebuild Modern Japane into what it is today ! Professor Clay admits much of what I'm saying in his subsequent paragraph above, which describes concessions towards Chinese-Americans in the same period-precisely this paragraph of Clay's shows that animus towards the Japanese at the time was more geostrategic and military than it was RACIAL or a matter of skin-tone.  I could alos rest my case there ! 

(3) When professor Clay above declares that "racist assumptions powered the enforcement of the policy" he proves my point again: that the formulation (rather than the implementation) of the policy itself may not have been mainly racist in character.  Likewise, professor Kamei DEFINITELy should have made this central logical distinction in organizing her presentation from the outset-  becauset it is a VITAL distinction in framing the issues, as I pointed out immediately (and politely enough) in Zoom during her talk.  Clay's further concessions above, moreover, similar to his paragraph about concesions to the Chinese,  saying that there also existed anti-Irish and anti-German sentiments at the time-this is a point Mr. Rutley also adduced in our forum- ALSO proves my point AGAIN: this was a nationalistic, national-security, issue at the time which was NOT mainly rooted (in its formulation) in race (though I agree with everone on the non-controversial statement that racism heavily influenced the implementation of the policy and was part of the general background or mentalite or zeitgesit of the policy-these are innocuous statementsr which do not address Korematsu's Supreme court challenge though).

(4) Thank you, professor Clay, for AGAIN proving me to be largely more right than wrong  in one of your subsequent paragraphs above- where you UNBELIEVABLY repeat the notion that the question "where are you from" is inherently racist !  Sir, did you not spend some of your life in China ?  Professor Clay: this claim really is ABSURD beyond repair so, in a strange way, I thank you for proving me right by your attempt lead all of us all down such a totally false rabbit-hole of argumentation..   I can demonstrate this to anyone, any time, at length- sir, you are TOTALLY wrong on THIS point.   Well, OK;  your claim there MIGHT might be somewhat salvageable in a few rare and unusual contexts; but, by and large, generally speaking, the question 'where are you from?' is NO indictment of racism or racists at ALL.  It is usually an entirely GOOD-FAITH question just like my INTERVENTION in the seminar. And Clay: on this one it looks like you are entirely outside of your own area of expertise so I have no hesitation to debate with you about it-I think it's probably more my in my area than yours if I may judge by your comments.   

(5) Let's now talk, finally, about the Atlanta spa shootings-something perhaps we all should have done when initially this came up before in our seminars.  This is an event way back in March of 2021.   Here is the deal: professor Clay has referred to this event, more than once in the seminar, in his typically vague and virtue-signaling fashion,  as some sort of demonstration of anti-Asian prejudice or racism today in the United States.   And, well, his claim is WRONG about that again-almost entirely so, again.   Subsequent investigations (of this event, the Atlanta shootings this year) have showed (according to my reliable sources-and I'm happy to share these any time with interested audience members) that this heinous and tragic crime, which we all deplore and detest so strongly in our hearts and minds, was NOT really racially motivated after all.   Clay: this is a fake news story as you portrayed in our seminarys which, if anything,  actually DISproves your frequent vague claims about the prevalence, not the mere existence, of anti-Asian racism today in the North America-(and the sociological issue is obviously about prevalence not mere existence).     And I would be happy to discuss many more DISproofs with you any time of the claim that anti-Asian racism is highly prevalent today in California...DOn't you all LIVE there ?  Because it sounds like you don't talk to too many fols there...Discussions about the origins of Covid19 in Wuhan this year, for instance, need not necessarily be interpreted as 'proofs' of anti-Asian prejudice- and you don't need a PHD in CHinese Historiography to see THAT !  These are just questions of rational skepticism, and also understanding that certain people have vested interests in reproducing certain narratives which, once operationalized, may be shown to be more or less true or false.  Meanwhile we all know that racism is a rather endangered and dying species in most parts of the world and especially on the West Coast of North America (though I'm happy to debat ethis point empirically with any interested parties provided you are debating in GOOD-faith). 

(6) Let's now look at Clay's uber-favorite pet claim that I am "uncollegial," whereas everyone else here-espeicially Clay and  the outstanding Kamei (and let's not forget Catherine Gao and inimical Todd Rutley)- y'all are all so unimpeachably and irreproachably, irrevocably,  more collegial THAN ME  on my best day (with emphasis!).  Well, Clay: I am not the only one in the seminar who ever spoke out of turn- that's chief-fact number one. And we have had many guest-sepakers WELCOME (rather than silence) GOOD-faithed audience interventions as, really, you would expect to be the case in most small-group, PD seminars, FOR Teachers.  That's fact number two. Fact number three is: it happened ONLY ONE TIME, Clay-and it was you who so often (and I almost want to say so hollowly, except that I do respect you) claimed that the EMPHASIS here was on HOW we could use this AS TEACHERS. There is fact number four. Clay, surely I have demonstrated to you, in my lengthy emails, and again here, what I was up to-that's fact number five. Yet even after I emailed you twice about it you STILL sent out a group email paritcularly singling me out as 'uncollegial' AND you also posted here in this forum sayin- quote- "David Walsh, YOU don't listen !" That's fact number six.   Well, here is another (and much better) way of thinking about it.  Professor Amy- (sorry I can't remember her last name here-you know, the anthropologist who spoke about women in Modern Japan)- how did SHE open HER seminar ?  The asnwer is: she opened her seminar saying "go ahead and ask questions at any time !".  That's exactly what collegiality looks in the real world Clay-FYI.  It does NOT look what you and professor Kamei, and your fans (like Catherine Gao and Todd Rutley)  seem to be up to in this non-dialogue of SILENCING me, and what seems to be a rather fake moral panic.   I apologized, indeed, almost immediately after the event, quite sincerely so.  And yet you, professor Clay, still wrote to the whole group, and wrote here AGAIN in this forum, saying "I don't listen' and 'I'm uncollegial" ? Really ? As a side note, by the way: I thought, when another student sopke out in the seminar (probably out of turn) to literally call you, professor Clay, a 'sexist' pig', I thought THAT WAS very uncollegial at the time !- but I don't see THAT student being publicly shamed and humiliated in USC emails and in this forum for excersizing HIS free-speech rights in THIS academic context !  Quite the howler that was !

(6) In Summary: Clay: your discussion of the Japanese internment seems really misguided (though I would expect that you and professor Kamei would know more about this issue than me, and though I have carefully emailed you twice my perspective on this issue, long before responding to you here in this forum).  Your cursory discussion of the Atlanta shootings was wrong, based on an a failure to investigate the issue, a failure of due process, a failure of critical thinking too.   Your singling ME out as uncollegial really ONLY because I happen not to exactly share some of your critical sympathies with regard to 'Critical Race Theory'  is also deeply problematic although, as an honest interlocutor, I have also acknowledged that there is some grey area there- and, at least, unlike you and Susan Kamei, I DID take responsibility and apologize for what was after all a very minor incident.  I objected ONCE to ONE of your guest-speakers at a critical juncture of her talk, during a rather pronographic expose of unclear purpose, and in good-faith.   You responded by publicly shaming me in a group email and in this forum, with the overall effect of chilling any dissent from your markedly one-sided framing of the central historical issue which I thought we were here to learn (and exchange) about.  The central issue is NOT that background racism existed at the time which no doubt affected the implementation of the internment policy but whether the policy itself was racist- a lot fo the evidence regarding the central issue is that the policy was not really racist (though I can admit that it's complicated and open to reasonable debate-I wish Kamei would have addressed THAT).

Last but not least: I'm still a big fan of you, sir, professor Clay, just like you ar ea big fan of the scholary work of Suan Kamei (though I wish you had explained why that is so). I simply do NOT agree with your and Susan Kamei's framing of the central historical issues regarding the Japanese internment-and I am far from alone in THAT disagreemnt !; moreover, I find your comments about collegiality and listening rather stilted and terse, sort of inaccurate and unfair.   Certainly, I could be more collegial and listen better: but the same advice seems to apply equally to yourself and to professor Kamei, despite your much more privileged positions relative to me in this context.  that obvious obviously applies to all of us here in different ways (if you really think about it). I am probably about as good of a person as you or Kamei are, and apparently I know about as much as both of you about this important matter of historical and analytical and moral investigation even though you SHOULD really know more about it than I do since you get paid to study such things and I usually don't- I am here mainly for the love of knoweldge and really that might be one of the biggest differences among the three of us if you want to engage in a moral discussion or comparison.

I wouldn't say that all academic dialogue needs to be dialectical but this was clearly a case when, by almost totally ignoring obvious objections to her own framing of the issue, Kamei's presentation had serious shortcomings worth highlighting.   To speak out of turn in a webinar in such a circumstance may have been mistake, but a lot oof what you said subsequently-all the vague and haughty talk about structural racism- reinforces my view that I had a point in doing so.  'There is truth on both sides.'  We can and should certainly apply moral judgements to the past but Kamei's talk missed an important opportunity to seriously evaluate the moral credentials of Roosevelt's policy- this is a historical issue which DOES still live with all of us today so it was important to have a debate about it (rather than a dogmatic sermon).     

David, December 9th, Ottawa