Is it wrong to teach about the Japanese American internment now? Because I’ve spent my whole life telling our story, and I’ll be damned if I’ll let some fool at a school board meeting refuse to let their kids hear about what happened to us.
The truth, people. Teach the truth.
— George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) November 2, 2021
How about this truth?
Three term DEMOCRAT President Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 that interred Japanese Americans and that all but one of the Supreme Court Justices who upheld EO9066 as Constitutional were DEMOCRATS nominated by FDR himself?
That it was also DEMOCRAT President Woodrow Wilson who segregated the US Military and DEMOCRAT President FDR who maintained the segregation, if we’re going to talk about WWII history.
We could also teach how DEMOCRAT President FDR commissioned Project M to relocate Jewish Holocaust survivors and American Jews to Madagascar, because he was an Antisemite too.
Those are some inconvenient facts though, so that might be a little too much truth.
Of all the things that happened in 2020, the one that I find most disappointing was Japanese Americans not desecrating FDR statues. If they started, I’m sure I could find some Jews to help with that.
FDR and Woodrow Wilson deserve to be spit roasted in hell for eternity.
Teach that.
I’m no kid, and I was certainly aware of it all the way back in my teens.
So sick of the clowns who confuse “not defining our existence off a single incident” with “not aware of the incident”.
This is the most clear-cut example of “Motte and Bailey” argumentation I have ever witnessed.
@Rob Crawford: If you were a kid now, you wouldn’t be aware of it. They don’t like to teach it, and when they do they gloss over a lot of the notable details — the party affiliations, how long the internment lasted, the tenuous (at best) justification for it all, the clear double-standard about how Japanese-Americans were treated vs. how actual known Nazi spies posing as German immigrants were treated, etc.
There’s no “confusion” about it. The goal is to destroy America and everything she stands for, by any means necessary. If that means judging nearly 250 years of history by individual temporary events that we ended ourselves, that’s what they’ll do.
———
On that last, it’s important to bring up how the various systems of slavery and indentured servitude on American soil were ended; it shows that we learn from our mistakes and grow as a nation. I have to believe that means something, partly because it means we as a nation do the right thing, and partly because Leftists avoid that point as if it were COVID-infected.
So, is Mr. Take calling the board members, who, in Mr. McAuliffe’s assessment have full unshared authority over curriculum, “some fool(s)”?
Because that’s what it sounds like.
Is someone saying it ‘shouldn’t’ be taught? Or is he just trying to garner some attention by trying to tie this to the inherently racist CRT?
He’s trying to run cover for the inherently authoritarian and explicitly racist CRT. It’s a classic “motte and bailey” argument paired with a bit of “supreme moral authority” performance theatre.
If you’re unfamiliar with 9th and 10th Century CE fortification designs, here’s a very brief overview. A motte and bailey is an early form of castle consisting of two primary bits. A large area enclosed by a low wall which contains the things you need for daily life: barn, grain stores, your house(s), maybe a workshop. This is the Bailey. Next to that, connected by a small staircase or drawbridge is a tall hill, atop of which, stands a small tower. This is the Motte.
The Motte was not a comfortable place to live, long term, but it was highly defensible. So, when enemies attacked, you tried to hold them off from the outer Bailey, but if hard pressed, you retreated to the Motte. Eventually, the enemy gave up and went away.
The motte and bailey argument is a fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the “motte”) and one much more controversial (the “bailey”). The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position.
CRT teaches that “white people” are inherently evil, “black people” are inherently victims, free market capitalism is inherently exploitive, and all sorts of other Marxist drivel. But when critics try to push back on this, they do what Takei is doing and argue they’re just trying to teach history…
Almost all leftist positions – from climate change to gun control, race relations to economic planning – are advanced by people using motte and bailey arguments.
The “motte and bailey” sounds like a defensive version of a “straw man” attack.
For the “straw man” argument, instead of challenging the opponent’s actual position, the arguer sets up a caricatured, easier-to-attack version of the opponent’s position — maybe they take the logic too far, or conflate it with a more controversial one the opponent never used. This caricatured position is known as the “straw man”, and compared with attacking a real person, the straw man is much easier to knock down.
It’d be like attacking an anti-CRT position by saying, “You just want to teach all these kids that white people are inherently better than People of Color! That’s ridiculous!”
Yes, it is. It’s also not an argument that most (if not all) anti-CRT parents and teachers aren’t even making. But it is much easier to attack and discredit, and so they do.
The story of the “Jews” is always boiled down to “antisemetism”. The Jewish Askenazim were the core of socialist/Communist activity. Both Putin and Solzhenitsyn have noted that ~85% of the original Bolsheviks were Jewish or married to Jews. After the revolution in Russia, Trotsky arrived with a group of mostly Jewish socialists/anarchists from New York. I read that much of the Communist leadership in Germany after WWI was Jewish. One of the factors that swung Germany to the Nazis was the brutal treatment by the Bolsheviks of the Slavs in Russia and the Ukraine. The Germans didn’t expect anything different. I read, also, that Hitler had hoped to use the Zionist dream of a Jewish nation as a means to evict the German jews (and Bolsheviks) to Madagascar. I wasn’t aware that FDR had picked up on that concept as a way to eliminate the Jewish/Bolshevik aggravation in the U.S.
The Levant/Palestine has been a hotbed of ethnic chaos since “forever”. After centuries, the Turks had made little or no progress in suppressing the ethnic unrest. After the “Mandate”, the Brits in “Palestine” were not doing too much better. Madagascar probably seemed to be a likely alternative for the Zionist impulse.
There was/is undoubtedly a stream of antisemetism in Russia, Germany, and the U.S., but it is probably a mistake to ignore the leftist/socialist/Bolshevik ideology that was involved. Stalin killed a lot of “Jews”, most likely since they were the core Bolshevik population. FDR blocked the ship load of Jews, probably not because they were “Jews”, but because it was a ship load of hostile Bolsheviks. Madagascar may have been a “political” solution rather than an “antisemetic” one.
“Antisemetism” seems to be an evasion from the underlying political stresses. I suspect that the “Jewish Question” may yet emerge in the struggle between the traditional Democratic “Corruptocrats” and the radical Leftist “Woke” branches of the party. The Brit Labour Party was damaged by charges of “antisemetism” and in the U.S., the radical left has taken great pains to separate “antizionism” from “antisemetism”. CRT may be only a distraction. Looks to be a fun ride.
One of the factors that swung Germany to the Nazis was the brutal treatment by the Bolsheviks of the Slavs in Russia and the Ukraine.
What? Nazi race ideology held the Slavs as a “lesser race”, thus pushing them out of Eastern Europe to make “liebensraum” for the Germans. And the people treating the Ukrainian Slavs cruelly were the Russian Slavs, under the command of the Ukrainian Stalin.
And, no, Nazi hatred of Jews had little to do with the number of Jews involved in communism. For one, the Nazis were also socialists — they weren’t as opposed to communism as the left wants us to believe. The founder of fascism made it clear he was improving communism, not abandoning it. Germany traded with the Soviets right up to the moment of Operation Barbarossa, and the Soviets let them use their training camps for practicing tank tactics.
As socialists, the Nazis were most angered by what they saw as Jewish domination of capitalism.
And the British Labour Party was “damaged” not by “charges” of antisemitism, but by open embrace of antisemitism by many high-visibility Labourites and the party’s reluctance to do anything about it.
Try and deal with two separate concepts. The Germans looked down on us Slavs but were appalled that the Bolsheviks would butcher “their own” people. That added to the German resistance to the concept of “Communism” in Germany which was in many respects already “Socialist”. There was a strain of “anti-Semetism” all over Europe. The behavior of the “Bolshevik Jews” just added fuel to that fire since it was viewed as “proof” that the Jews were different and un-trust worthy. Many countries in Europe during the 30s had “Democratic Socialist” majorities in government. “Socialism” wasn’t that big of a deal. The death toll of the “Bolsheviks” was a big deal. The Nazi regime was careful to direct most of their abuse against ‘outsiders”, using the theme of racial solidarity. The Nazis killed enough Slavs because they were “them”. The Bolshevik ideology, on the other hand, killed those who were “us”. That didn’t go down well with the German population. The Nazis avoided “class” warfare in favor of racial solidarity. I seem to recall that taking on “socialist” was a rather late, afterthought since it was acceptable to much of the german population.
I seem to recall that [the Nazis] taking on “socialist” was a rather late, afterthought since it was acceptable to much of the german population.
Someone told you that the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei who were founded to advance the philosophy of Nationalsozialismus were reluctant to label themselves as sozialistische?
And you believed them!?
Have you ever actually read any of the NSDAP’s political advertising, organizational literature, or listened to/read transcripts of their campaign speeches? Have you ever studied the laws and policies they put into place after they were elected?
The National Socialist German Workers Party were ever bit as socialist as the Bolsheviks in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The only difference between the two strands of the philosophy were that the CCCP believed in international communism and the NDSAP practiced national socialism.
Frankly Mike, if those are the things you read, then you need to be much more discerning about choosing your sources wisely. As a retired historian, I can state from knowledge of the relevant primary sources that you are wrong on almost every single count.
Since you are merely spouting or parroting bias and falsehoods, I’m not willing to take the time to engage with you further. But let us note that there is “Only one rule:” for comments here, and you’ve clearly broken it with both of your comments.
Although he left out some important details, Rob Crawford’s comments in his response to you are essentially historically correct.
Check out the book – Magic: The Untold Story of U.S. Intelligence and the Evacuation of Japanese Residents from the West Coast During WW II
It includes the declassified documentation of what really happened. It is not popular with much of anyone. The publisher got hung out to dry by NPR but it is the unabashed truth of the situation from inside the government at the time from my understanding.
Well, FDR was just doing what Woodrow Wilson did during WWI. After all, WW created internment camps for German-Americans. Which isn’t taught, because German-descended Americans are just your average white person, therefore not a victim class.
WW also ordered seizure of German-American property, and ordered the creation of neighborhood watch groups to look for German-Americans acting, well, Germanic or speaking German or anything otherwise plausible and to rat out the suspected Germanish person and to destroy the lives and livelihood of said suspects.
One of the saddest things in my family’s history is my grandma, a young child during WWII, ratted out her housekeeper for speaking German on a trolley. The woman supposedly only spoke English when hired. I thought it was all noble, until Grandma also said that they, or anyone else they knew, wouldn’t hire anyone who could speak German. All because of Woodrow Wilson and his administration.
Needless to say, there was no restitution for any victim of these policies, so George can stfu.
War is a tough time in a multi-ethnic society. In western Illinois the village of “Hanover” was attacked during WWI because it was one of many “Dutch” settlements in the Mid-West. The nearby B&O interchange/signal “tower” is still known as “Hanover Cabin”.They changed the name of the settlement to “Washington Park”. During WWII the Germen Command hoped for a “gimme” and put some Nazis ashore on the East Cost. The first J. Edgar’s boys knew about that was when the Nazis were dumped in their laps by the locals.
By comparison, during the attack on Pearl Habor, several Japanese aircraft were shot down. A number of Japanese “immigrants” tried to help the aircrew escape and others went mute so as not to to betray their “countrymen”.
The Germans (and the Italians) were judged to be “American”, the Japanese not so much. The incidents were not publicised, and it wasn’t “racism”, but when the opportunity was dumped on them by fate, they failed the test.
The Soviets treated the “Germans” who had immigrated several generation prior, a lot worse.
War isn’t easy. One of my Grandmothers was reluctant to speak English for almost half a century after she arrived. If an immigrant refuses to asimilate, what else does does an average “Joe” have to go on?
When I picked up a car in Germany, I quickly learned enough to get by to order food or gas up the car. My accent clearly flagged me as a Yank, but I was trying. In a multi-ethnic society, there isn’t much else to go on. Speaking “English” with a few “untranslateable” foreign words is no real problem. Not even trying English is bound to arouse “suspicion”. My late wife was obviously from Virginia, one of her friends obviously grew up in the Mississippi Delta. Don’t mean nothing. But it is a clue. Hence “Hanover” became “Washington Park”. Now, the Mid-West, like Pennsylvania, is flooded with “Dutchmen”. Tain’t nothing.
If someone will not speak the language, they may be a new arrival or an infiltrator. That is a big thing during wartime.
On a linguistic note “Dutch” as in Pennsylvania Dutch is typically a mispronounciation of Deutsch (German) rather than a reference to people from the, Seven Provinces. Notable exceptions in the US are the Hudson Valley which was originally colonized by the Dutch and the Portland Oregon area which has a significant immigrant population and lots of actual Dutch names.
As a further aside Roosevelt is an old Patroon family from the 17th Century colonization of New York.
I went to elementary school in the fifties (yeah I’m an old fart). Our parents and teachers lived through the war, many were combat vets. We grew up on stories of wartime activities from personal experiences. Yes, we knew about the internment camps, and the removal of Japanese-American citizens from the west coast. Initially, I tended to buy the argument that it was necessary to protect the west coast war industries from sabotage. As I grew older I realized that the abuse of the constitutional rights of those sent to internment camps, the false accusations of potential sabotage, and the valor of the Nisei troops in combat proved that the supposed disloyalty of Japanese citizens was a an atrocious lie.
Now we have Socialist Dems telling us on one hand that white supremacy is the cause of all the ills of the world and on the other hand they lump Asians with White people for the purpose of demanding diversity in education, private sector employment and government. Once more the Dems are lying to us about their motives for discriminating against Asians.