Sat 20 Feb 2010
Instead of interrupting Dick Swart’s excellent post about the World War II internment of Japanese-Americans, I thought it useful to move the discussion to a new thread. Start with this item in the Daily Messages:
This message was sent to Students, Faculty, and Staff on February 19, 2010 by Rebecca Ohm, Williams College Libraries.
Message:
Executive Order 9066 On this day in 1942, Franklin Roosevelt signed Exec. Order 9066, authorizing “removal of resident enemy aliens”, to what were described as “military areas”. U.S. citizens or not, thousands of Japanese-Americans were interned in these camps, ruining lives and livelihoods in the process. MORE: http://www.williams.edu/messages/show.php?id=12644 from Rebecca Ohm, Williams College LibrariesMessage details:
For more on this dark period in U.S. history, explore the extensive library collections on this aspect of WWII; search FRANCIS http://francis.williams.edu/ for subjects: Japanese Americans — Evacuation and relocation, 1942-1945 Japanese Americans — Reparations World War, 1939-1945 — Japanese Americans
This is a cute little example of political correctness at Williams because it pretends that there is only one reasonable position to hold: That internment was evil. In fact, as with most controversial issues, there are two sides. Curious about the other side? Start with In Defense of Internment: The Case for ‘Racial Profiling’ in World War II and the War on Terror by Michelle Malkin. Note especially the seriousness with which Malkin engages her academic critics.
Best part? The Williams libraries do not own a copy of Malkin’s book! Wouldn’t want to confuse the students . . .
UPDATE: Just to clarify, I don’t mean to accuse Rebecca Ohm of political correctness. I don’t know her. But every member of the Williams library staff that I have dealt with has been knowledgeable and cordial. Instead, I think this Daily Message illustrates an attitude that is widespread at Williams, as Professor Sam Crane’s comment demonstrates.
Print • Email| « ShockDoctor | NRC Suggestion » |
33 Responses to “Ruining Lives and Livelihoods”
Leave a Reply
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post
If a comment you submitted does not show up, please email us at eph at ephblog dot com. Please note that commenters are required to use a valid email address when submitting comments.
jeffz says:
Ahhh yes, David’s favorite book rears its ugly head again … the same book that, according to David, I was laughably ignorant for characterizing as supporting internment of racial minorities. Truly one of my top ten favorite Kane moments …
http://www.ephblog.com/2010/01/19/mass-backward/
jeffz says:
Oh, and I didn’t realize that academic libraries were expected to carry copies of all books by political pundits … in all events, they do carry one inflammatory Malkin book, so you really can’t cry bias there …
Sam says:
What real historians think of Malkin…
A key graf from the second link:
“An analysis of Malkin’s book should start with the material the author includes on MAGIC (the decrypted intercepts of the Japanese code), which by her own statement constitutes the heart of her argument. There is a certain repetition in my response here, since the author further states that her material is mostly if not entirely lifted from the work of the late David Lowman, to whom the book is dedicated. Lowman first tried in the 1980s to make a case that the MAGIC cables justified Executive order 9066. His work has been repeated and decisively refuted, most recently by James C. McNaughton, Command Historian of the United States Army, Pacific.”
Please note: “decisively refuted.”
Now, maybe McNaughton, too, is caught up in “pc” cuteness; especially since his position as Command Historian of the US Army, Pacific would tend in that direction…
But none of this matters. Kane is hell bent on running down the scholarly work of the College. He wants to make Malkin into an intellectual equal of our professional historians, which any fair-minded thinker will recognize as hog-wash… For Kane it’s always about attacking the academic integrity of Williams….
bfleming says:
This has got to be the funniest thing I’ve read in a while. Yes, we should note it. She very sincerely advances her totally-incorrect bad faith arguments. Extra credit! Here’s her “serious” response to what most of those historians view as the overarching problem with the book — that it basically would have been impossible to do the type of research she claimed to do (as opposed to, let’s say, cherry-picking certain items from secondary sources to assemble a polemic) in a year.
Of course. If only these lazy-ass historians would get off their couches and spend some time in the realm of in-depth research that is Fox News punditry, they’d get something accomplished. Maybe “daily journalism” also gives you wings like Red Bull; she doesn’t say.
UPDATE: Saved (mostly!) from the trash by DK. Apologies for any lost links or mistakes.
David says:
Sam,
You realize that the links you provided, written by two members of the (I am not making this up!) “Historians’ Committee for Fairness,” hurt your case more than they help it, don’t you?
1) I am not claiming that Malkin is right or wrong. I am claiming that she represents the other side of the dispute and that this side — that internment was a defensible decision given what was known at the time — is a plausible one. After all, Roosevelt (despite being a Democratic!) seems like a smart and thoughtful fellow.
2) The historians you cite believe:
These folks want to censor Malkin! They don’t think she belongs on TV. Consider what Eugene Volokh thinks:
Or Clayton Cramer:
Are Volokh and Cramer also among the folks that you don’t think we should pay attention to?
Ben,
I think Cramer’s comment addresses your point. If you are so sure that Malkin’ arguments are “totally-incorrect,” then how do you explain Cramer’s defense? He has given this topic a lot more thought than you have . . .
UPDATE: Rescued from trash by DK. Slightly edited.
04 says:
hahahahahhah you stop reading ephblog for a while and come back to this. golden. and david wonders why no one in the administration takes him seriously. hahahahah seriously.
JG says:
If you’re not accusing the librarians of political correctness, why did you call it an example of political correctness?
FACTS are not political correctness. Please tell me one single sentence or phrase in that announcement that isn’t true?
I honestly cannot believe anyone is trying to saying Japanese Internment wasn’t a horrible blight on the history of this country. Seriously, what’s your next act – Slavery: It Had Its Good Points?
This is ridiculous.
FYI says:
“Are Volokh and Cramer also among the folks that you don’t think we should pay attention to?”
As a long-time reader of the Volokh Conspiracy, I would say that Cramer is indeed someone one ought to at least be cautious about paying too much attention to. This is someone who actually got kicked off of Volokh, which is hardly a humming bed of leftist PCism, because of his obsession with attacking (in print) gay men and his consistent claims that most of them are proponents of coprophagia. He’s a nut. There used to be a game among Volokh commentators to see how long it would take after any mention of homosexuality for Cramer to show up and eventually start talking about coprophagia.
For an in-depth take-down of Malkin on this topic, see Eric Muller’s writings at http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/japanese_american_internment/
For what it’s worth, it’s crazy that the Williams libraries don’t have Malkin’s book, much as I think it’s crap.
David says:
04: Do you have a substantive argument to make? If so, make it. Alas, you seem to be a Williams grad who never came across a professor willing to challenge your tender sensibilities.
JG: I don’t view the librarian as someone with a great deal of power at Williams. Professor Crane, as a senior tenured professor, does have power. I also am not sure how much thought the librarian put into the message. Professor Crane took time to research the topic. As always, I hate to throw around the PC label too quickly. So, in this case, I restrict it to Professor Crane who (corrections welcome!) thinks that there is no plausible defense of Roosevelt’s actions with regard to internment. That is PC!
FYI: Compare the link that I provided above to the one you suggested. Isn’t mine much better? Please, let’s try to provide the most useful information possible to EphBlog readers. If you are not checking my links, then you may find it tough to follow the discussion . . .
JG says:
@David: So you’re now accusing Sam Crane of writing the Daily Message? I’m not sure what your point is with that. I’d suggest if you don’t want to make accusations about the librarians, you should remove your commentary doing just that. I know it’s hard for you to admit you’re wrong/rash/imprecise in your commentary, but it would earn you more respect.
And it’s is rich for you to claim others should make an argument when you traffic is snotty comments and personal attacks. Seriously.
David says:
JG writes:
Not sure you understand what political correctness is.
In this context, the politically correct opinion (the ones that minimize “social offense” within the Williams community) is that there is no possible defense of internment and Michelle Malkin and/or her book need not be taken seriously.
These are not “FACTS.” They are opinions, reasonable ones to be sure. But there are reasonable folks on the other side as well.
David says:
JG: My preference is to focus on Sam Crane and not Rebecca Ohm. Do you have a problem with that?
Ronit says:
@David: now you’re just being intentionally obnoxious to commenters.
kthomas says:
David, you’re citing original research on WikiPedia which is unsourced and violates the WikiPedia NPOV policies. I’m not sure the writer understands what so-called “political correctness” is.
David says:
Ronit: I will cop to obnoxiousness to 04, but her “hahahahahhah” suggested (to me) that this was her preferred level of discourse. I don’t think that I have been obnoxious to Sam, Ben or JG in this thread.
David says:
Ken: One of the (main?) authors of that Wikipedia page is John Quiggin. Take up your complaints with him, not me.
What is your definition of political correctness?
Sam says:
“The Members of Congress and distinguished guests, my fellow Americans, we gather here today to right a grave wrong. More than 40 years ago, shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, 120,000 persons of Japanese ancestry living in the United States were forcibly removed from their homes and placed in makeshift internment camps. This action was taken without trial, without jury. It was based solely on race, for these 120,000 were Americans of Japanese descent.
“Yes, the Nation was then at war, struggling for its survival and it’s not for us today to pass judgment upon those who may have made mistakes while engaged in that great struggle. Yet we must recognize that the internment of Japanese-Americans was just that: a mistake. For throughout the war, Japanese-Americans in the tens of thousands remained utterly loyal to the United States. Indeed, scores of Japanese-Americans volunteered for our Armed Forces, many stepping forward in the internment camps themselves. The 442d Regimental Combat Team, made up entirely of Japanese-Americans, served with immense distinction to defend this nation, their nation. Yet back at home, the soldier’s families were being denied the very freedom for which so many of the soldiers themselves were laying down their lives.”
Ronald Reagan, 1988
“A grave wrong.” “It was based solely on race…” “A mistake.”
Ken Thomas '93 says:
@David:
Is that supposed to impress me, somehow? It doesn’t. :) You’re responsible for the reliability and veracity of your sources.
Terms with histories have no definitions. John might probably use that lesson. (A closer look at his comments and the edit history of the article, reveals that he probably gets it, and that he seems to have little to do with the lede which you quote).
As I just added to the Wikipedia discussion:
Ken Thomas '93 says:
@Sam:
That’s nice rhetoric, and certainly very inflated, for the purposes of the moment. But just because one of Ronnie’s speechwriters got it in front of his drugged eyes, doesn’t make it true. (Even if Malkin is equally …)
In fact– it is entirely because the key phrases that you pull at the end, were part of a political moment, and the construction of a political project, that we should question their justefaction (justification).
Ken Thomas '93 says:
This seems to be David’s core premise:
David says:
Sam: Did you miss this part?
Again, the issue under dispute is not: Was internment a “mistake” or a “grave wrong?” The issue is: Was internment a reasonable choice by Roosevelt given the information that he had at the time?
In this context, it is similar to other great debates about World War II: Should the US have nuked Japan? Should the Allies have firebombed German cities? As always in these debates, there are two different contexts that one can (and should!) consider things:
1) Given what Allied leaders knew at the time, was action X justified?
2) If Allied leaders had known then everything that we know now, would action X have been justified?
Now that we know that the probability of a Japanese attack on the US mainland was vanishingly small, internment seems a bad decision. But Roosevelt, in 1942, had less knowledge than we have now.
Malkin’s point (full disclosure: I have not read the book) is that Roosevelt’s actions, given what he knew, were not unreasonable. Do you think that this claim does not belong in, say, the syllabus of a Williams history course devoted to World War II?
JG says:
@David: Let’s use your super reliable Wikipedia definition…At what point did the Daily Message post minimize anything? You’re the one seeking to minimize the suffering of Japanese Americans.
@David: Also, if you want to focus on Sam Crane, start out by posting about something he said and did and not making commentary about the librarians and/or editing your post to remove the commentary that is directed at them if you don’t believe or allegedly didn’t intend to question their professionalism.
FYI says:
David– Sorry, my link was messier than intended. Muller, however, is a very legitimate legal scholar who has, in fact, been a guest blogger at Volokh. My guess is that he is held in far greater intellectual esteem by Eugene et al. than is Malkin.
Sam says:
Here’s why it’s foolish to engage with Kane (and why I will quit now). Only in his fevered mind can the jump be made from a critique of Malkin to the idea that certain topics should not be debated at all. Let me be very clear about this David, so you won’t get it wrong: yes, it is good and fine that all of us, students and faculty alike, delve into historical questions of all sorts. And Malkin is a right-wing crank. Why bother with her sorry attempt to create a historical precedent for Gitmo and torture (which is the “political moment” [thanks Ken] she is operating in) when there are other, real, careful historians to read? Perhaps you missed this somewhere, but at Williams we do serious intellectual inquiry, not ideological hack-work.
From here on out, I’m sticking with Swart.
jeffz says:
I’m glad I watched the basketball game instead of engaging in this thread. No historian will ever argue that my choice was erroneous, I can promise that much.
Parent '12 says:
“cute little example of political correctness” (italics are mine)
Dave- Cute little example is really patronizing, whether one thinks that the daily message is politically correct or not. For any who work in the library, I hope professionalism leads them to continue to be cordial to you.
(Personally, similar to JG, I only saw fact in the message.)
rory says:
I find this post absolutely distasteful and disrespectful, andnot because this whole malkin thing was already brought up and discussed recently.
Dick posted a personal post earlier today and, following davids advice on how to deal with off topic posts, moved comments to speak up. Now, that post is below (on my phone) this stuff about being pc. This type of focusing on your political axe, david, is onanism and egotism at its worst. Dick dealt with the comments and we should have let it had prime position on the blog for longer than you did.
kthomas says:
@rory:
Thanks. I was (painfully) aware of this. Unfortunately, on the top/in the lede is where such posts appear. EphBlog 2.0 is on its way and will give us better ways to deal with these side discussions.
Until then… a little cludge….
Derek says:
Jesus. I go away for a few days and suddenly see Michelle Malkin’s book on internment (on anything?) cited as legitimate?
Michelle Malkin’s book should not be taken seriously not because of “political correctness” but because it is a terrible fucking book that is historically void of merit. Michelle Malkin is a vicious ideologue. No serious historian takes her seriously. And her apologia of internment is of a piece with her lack of seriousness.
And in any case, why let ourselves get backed into a corner? Yeah — arguments for internment are prima facie illegitimate.
And, fair advanced warning: At least on the issue of Malkin’s place in the historiography I’m gonna engage in argument by authority on this particular thread.
dcat
BHC says:
Not sure what this discussion has to do with Williams, but it does bring one Williams-related point to mind.
In the early 1980s, there was an old stone bench somewhere on Stone Hill, dedicated to the memory of man with a German name who had died circa 1917. As I remember it, the story was that the bench commemorated an instructor in German at Williams. After the US entered World War I, he was treated as a pariah by the Williams community, and he committed suicide as a result.
Don’t know if the story is entirely accurate, but Google found the following in a reference to Stone Hill:
“A gravel road leads through a fence to a stone bench, placed there by local citizens in memory of a resident as an apology for treating him badly during World War I because he was of German ancestry.”
Link: http://seniortravel.suite101.com/article.cfm/williamstown_perfect_new_england_autumn_journey
jeff s' says:
e·vil /ˈivəl/ Show Spelled[ee-vuhl]
–adjective
1.morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2.harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3.characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4.due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5.marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition
One could argue (as I believe) that the actions one takes while under duress or threat are a true test of character. It is always possible to rationalized injurious conduct.
What do the following statements have in common?
“Based upon what was known…”
“No one could have anticipated…”
“A meeting was called…”
“Mistakes were made…”
They are all meant to escape accountability.
It is revealing to see what each of us (me included) attempts to rationalize or justify so that we do not encounter inconvenient facts.
Consider this a vote condemning executive order 9066 as an illegal and evil act.
bfleming says:
I don’t see any reason to believe Cramer has given this topic a lot more thought than I have, or that he’s any sort of authority on the topic. It doesn’t appear, for instance, that he’s even read the book. He’s readable enough on gun-related issues, but as someone pointed out above, once you get him out of his comfort zone, he gets pretty shaky.
As for his point, it only makes any kind of sense if you think that historians’ conventions have no value independent of the convention. Which, of course, has to be wrong — thoroughness, accuracy, etc, have value regardless of whether or not they’re considered “professional” in the historical sense.
I’d also point out that Malkin makes a much stronger claim in her book than you are making. We can think of three positions: 1) internment was evil, and this was apparent at the time of the policy’s adoption, not just in retrospect; 2) internment was a reasonable decision at the time, but turned out to be a tragic mistake; 3) internment was justified at the time, and offers an instructive model for how we should approach the current conflict with Islamic radicals. Malkin is firmly in Camp No. 3 — perhaps you’d appreciate this better if you, you know, read the book you’re defending.
You appear to be in Camp No. 2. But there’s nothing inconsistent with that position and the views expressed in the library e-mail. The e-mail says nothing about the initial decision — it speaks only in terms of effects. It says that lives were ruined and that this was a “dark period” in US history. Well, yeah — if something was reasonable at the time but turned out to be an awful thing in retrospect, its effects are no less real. If a cop on a rainy night (reasonably, as determined by a jury) shoots a 14-year-old kid carrying a toy gun, that doesn’t make the incident any less tragic or “dark,” does it? Even if I agreed with you as to the initial reasonableness of the decision, I could still believe everything in the e-mail. In other words, it doesn’t do anything like what you claimed it did. I think you must have been in a real hurry to condemn what you saw as easy PC point-scoring, or you would have seen this.
bfleming says:
That last sentence is backwards, but you get what I’m saying.