- Mar 15, 2002
- Reaction score
I feel pretty sure the forum made it through eight years of the previous administration without dipping to disparaging remarks based on the physical appearance of its chief. Am I mistaken? Let's try to maintain a modicum of decorum, shall we?our Cheeto-in-Chief's
Explain it in light of the absence of American citizens of German ancestry not facing the same treatment and you'll have a better chance of making a case of it being anything but racist.I just feel it's boiled down to "hey let's look at how racist America was 70 years ago" and I don't feel that's an accurate representation of my country at the time.
I was simply answering your question. I was trying to explain the reasoning behind what you asked about. I didn't say it was justified. If I were the president or congress or whoever at the time I'm not sure I would have voted against it though. I'm simply saying the connections of the Japanese to Japan in America at the time were stronger than the ties of the group you asked about the Germans to Germany.Explain it in light of the absence of American citizens of German ancestry not facing the same treatment and you'll have a better chance of making a case of it being anything but racist.
Do they even still teach basic civics in American schools anymore?If I were the president or congress or whoever at the time I'm not sure I would have voted against it though.
Which has what to do with it?I'm simply saying the connections of the Japanese to Japan in America at the time were stronger than the ties of the group you asked about the Germans to Germany.
Sadly, I'd say that the non-Nikkei populations probably did feel that way; our country has a long history of treating immigrant populations horrifically in turn, which essentially stratified society into racial classes based on how "established" that immigrant population had become. Precisely because everyone got lumped together by their origins, people arranged themselves into siloed communities as they were more likely to be able to rely on "their own kind." People were encouraged to "stick to their own," and instead of coming together and caring for each other, each minority group was too busy scraping by for themselves to worry about how someone from another tribe was treated. This extends beyond racial lines as different interest groups have been reluctant to work together and collectively demand equal treatment and representation. While they may have been sympathetic to each others' causes, the black civil rights movement, native rights, women's rights, and the LGBTQ movements couldn't fully integrate even though their basic goals were the same, because the groups may have felt they had a better chance of getting what they wanted for themselves if they didn't attach others' demands to their own.You do realize that your explanation boils down to "It was excusable because their citizenship was lesser than the citizenship of the German-Americans"....right?
Yes I'm aware this is how it happened. Normally things go through the senate to be signed into law but they can be done via executive order like in this case. And I'm by no means saying it wasn't a racist action but one President saying the actions of another is racist is barely a good measure of that especially if they're from different parties. Which in this case they were (Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D)) issued the executive order and 3 Presidents apologized for it Gerald Ford (R), Ronald Reagan (R), George Bush Sr.(R)) whether or not they are correct in their assessment of it being racist they certainly had party motivation to call it such. In the United States for political parties the lines are often black and white as to how they treat the opposite party.Do they even still teach basic civics in American schools anymore?
Presidents don't vote on legislation. Not that it matters, because this wasn't an issue brought about through legislative action anyway. It was an executive order and one which went against the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Nobody voted for the forced relocation. It was never subject to a vote.
View attachment 24477
If you don't want your understanding of basic American civics questioned, then don't air your deficiencies in that area in public.I think it's mean spirited to boil down my opinion as simply lack of understanding of civics.
Right....because logically racism always leads to organized large scale attempts at genocidal extermination.Certainly if it was simply racism we would have treated them like the Germans did the Jewish people.
I think the committee could have done that on a Post-It note.I think it's an oversimplification of the issue to just boil it down to "racism" and no additional thought on the issue.
Although a fan of the original Star Trek and against what happened to his family and others during the internment George unfortunately had made various statements which are historically incorrect in regards to the atomic bombs dropped on Japan.I saw George Takei (Star Trek fans will remember him) speaking on the issue on CNN yesterday. There's an interesting commentary authored by him on the days when his family was interned:
Technically they do. They can veto legislation. Congress then has the power to override the veto if they have enough votes. The president can also can chose not translate the legislation into action physical actions by the executive branch or the president can fail to enforce such legislation.Presidents don't vote on legislation.