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?
Thanks for your understanding. Perhaps it would be a topic deserving of its own thread.
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 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.
Do they even still teach basic civics in American schools anymore?
Which has what to do with it?
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.
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.
If you don't want your understanding of basic American civics questioned, then don't air your deficiencies in that area in public.
Right....because logically racism always leads to organized large scale attempts at genocidal extermination.
I think the committee could have done that on a Post-It note.
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.
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.