Alan D Glick wrote: > > I find it hard to believe that a country under attack, and at war would > divert resources, time, effort, money, personel etc. to act on a racist > agenda. In other words, racism played no part in the interment. It was a > security measure.
I'm not saying that it is purposeful effort. Racism is personal and generated within each person's thinking process. To think that no one within the US decision makers were not racially influenced by their own thoughts is not realistic, in light of what happened with the Canadian internment. I'm not saying that all in the Canadian decision were racially motivated - that is impossible to say without specific evidence, but the consensus overall was that it was largely based on racial discrimination. To outright deny that the US action did not have some element of racism is too much of a leap for me. It may be possible, but I can't accept your argument without proof that backs up the statement. Our two countries parallel each other in many ways, and in their actions. I think we all concede that racism happens everywhere on the planet and in various ways. To deny it is not a factor, is to deny human instincts. I will admit that I think the primary motive was security, but somewhere down the line of reasons racism slipped in unnoticed, regardless of what anyone might say. As we have seen with 911, fear generates racism. The American people were afraid that Pearl Harbour would lead to attack on the mainland (see parody of this in the film 1941), and if there was fear then, it surely led to a rise in racism against the Japanese. Suddenly these people were no longer contributing members of American society but possible spies and saboteurs, intent on advising their homeland of US weaknesses. Does this make sense? I know this is pretty simplistic but I think narrows it down to the bare essentials. My last word on it as we have drifted off topic. I will be interested for your final comment. Scotty Henderson
