Dean's World

Well said, Alex!

As an aside, why was this article picked out for special recognition? It has no content. It's just a list of the most vile and offensive e-mails Malkin has received recently. Her intent, it seems to me, is not to make some noble point about freedom of conscience. In the linked post, she never mentions the concept. She claims that the post is about criticizing Armstrong Williams for playing into the prejudices of these racist liberals. But she had another column for that. What was this post intended to achieve?

It's supposed to make liberals look bad. That's it.

Good for you, Dean, if you can see some greater truth in Malkin's narcissistic rambling, but you're giving her way too much credit.

I haven't yet read Michelle Malkin's book, but I agree with Robert Speirs here. I have a question: If the internment was based on race, then why weren't Chinese interned also? Japan was an enemy nation, it was not regarded as part of an enemy "race" (we left that sort of thinking to the Nazis). Also, it turns out, some Germans and Italians were also interned. German-American Bundists, Silver-Shirters, and other Nazi sympathizers were carefully watched over by the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover (who, by the way, opposed the internment at the time) and investigated by the HUAC under Martin Dies, and some were put on trial for attempting to undermine the morale of our soldiers. For more details, see John Roy Carlson's "Under Cover: My Four Years in the Nazi Underground of America".

Well, Robert, you can see how open-minded those two are; even suggesting the possibility that the FDR administration might have had some non-racial motivations inspires vicious scorn.

Some specifics: Mr. Knapp displays a significant historical deficiency (or, perhaps, a reading problem); no one was "locked in a cage" soley due to race. Alex, if you honestly think that's what happened, please read some factual history before exposing your ignorance in public.

The displaced Japanese-Americans were on the west coast, in near proximity to the major ports supporting the Pacific War. One of the motivations involved was concern about providing easy access to native saboteurs. Another concern was that many young men (even born in the US) still looked to Japan as their primary loyalty. Many, when asked to swear exclusive loyalty to the US ("question 27 &28"). Also note that Imperial Japan was fairly liberal in funding political parties in America who might look upon them with favor, later. Some of the parties recieving such funds are still classified to this day, because those revelations could kick up a serious ruckus, even today.

Yet another point was that no one was "locked up;" the camps were to provide housing for the detainees until they could find more permanent residences. They were free to leave the camps. Alas, it didn't happen that way.

Please note that Italian-Americans and German-Americans were on the recieving end of significant abuse during World War 1, some of it worse than anything done to the Japanese-Americans. Some of those two groups were also relocated in World War 2, but not to the same degree.

My own belief is that while the administration might have had good arguments for moving at least some people from the west coast, the actual implementation was so broad, and heavy-handed that serious injustices occured. For example, those who owned property would -in theory- be fairly compensated. This did not occur. Another failing point was the utter lack of discrimination (in the alternate sense): everyone had to leave.

The housing situation was a similar pooch-screw. Terrible, cheap housing which took no consideration for the culture of the internees. Even the nisei weren't as assimilated to the same degree 2nd-generation immigrants would be today. One example would be the lack of privacy for personal hygiene.

In summary, the treatment of Japanese-Americans was, in fact, a terrible injustice which was barely recognized by the later court-ordered compensation. What many people fail to see is that the relocation was not just rabid racism, even though that was certainly present.

Too many people -correspondents Knapp and Vogel in evidence- insist on portraying relocation as study in black and white, with no grey involved. Their position puts them, oddly enough, on the "good" side. Pleasant coincidence, that. Convenient, too.

As for Mr. Vogel's claim of "narcissistic rambling," he reads Malking neither thouroughly nor well. The point of that article was that certain types (again, one is tempted to point to Mssrs Knapp and Vogel) would use that scandal as a brush to tar all minority conservaties. She merely cited specifics from her personal experience relating to "liberals" who disagreed with her in an especially vulgar way.

Drew, are you deliberately ignoring the way liberal commentators, cartoonists, and public figures (Harry Belafonte, for example) have vilified black conservative Americans? The editorial cartoons about Condolezza Rice are particularly offensive, but (hey!) these are liberals we're talking about. Everyone knows liberals are always kind, considerate, and respectful of others' opinions, and never, ever descend to race-baiting. And yes, I'm being sarcastic.

There's a lot of racist liberals out there. The difference is that racist conservatives are (justly) called out on their bad habits while the racist liberals are (usually) ignored. I cite in evidence the above-mentioned Belafonte, the wide variety of vulgar cartoons re: Ms. Rice, and catty comments ("skeeza" Condolezza, etc) regarding same. I can see why people such as Ms. Malkin hold a jaundiced view this hypocrisy.

Conservatives are more forthcoming about bigotry these days, as evidenced by the Trent Lott fiasco. The left would do well to pursue the racists in their own ranks as vigorously.

And, if Mr. Vogel had read Malkin more regularly, he would have seen her column with a compare &contrast between her and Margaret Cho. Both are women; both Asian-American, both outspoken, and so on. The difference, of course, is that Cho is definitely liberal while Malkin is definitely conservative. In fact Ms. Malkin expresses some sympathy for Cho, since they both no doubt are on the recieving end of many of the same bigoted insults.

Another difference is that Michelle Malkin is -as a conservative- regularly pilloried as a "race traitor" and is reminded that she "isn't white." Only minority conservatives face this particular burden. Since when have Cho or (say) Russell Simmons been branded "race traitors," or (in Simmons' case) "not really black?"

That, my friends, is the point.

All those German and Italian families put in the camps are still ignored by most.

As for Malkin's point: people of the wrong race who are conservatives or even libertarians face some of the most vile attacks I've ever seen. I've seen it myself, and most will tell you they've experienced it.

Casey:

"The point of that article was that certain types (again, one is tempted to point to Mssrs Knapp and Vogel) would use that scandal as a brush to tar all minority conservaties. She merely cited specifics from her personal experience relating to "liberals" who disagreed with her in an especially vulgar way."

No, Casey. That was the point of the Malkin article that Dean didn't link to. The article that he did link was basically an appendix to that article, and simply reprinted a selection of the vilest e-mails she's recently received. The e-mails are certainly vile, and I would not defend any them any more then I would defend Malkin's book. I find them equally outrageous.

I'm sure that there were non-racist reasons for the internment. I'm also sure that there were racist reasons for it. I really don't care. The policy was itself racist, in conception and execution, quite apart from whatever might have motivated its proponents.

Drew, you read my full post, yes? I agree that racism played a major role in the internment.

What I was trying to illustrate (perhaps not very well) was a) that there were sane reasons -at the time- for making that decision, and b)summarily dismissing work as Malkin's by holding onto an arbitrary black&white view -her view necessarily being wrong in this case- is a disservice to an honest examination of history, resulting in the conclusion that the attitude displayed in the first two comments in this thread are the result of a combination of dogmatism and narrow thinking.

I may have mixed up the threading in the Malkin links; I believe there's about a half-dozen related posts on her blog regarding this. But still, her main point holds.

And no one has has yet addressed the way many liberal/left cartoonists, commentators, and talking heads have engaged in blatantly racist remarks against their conservative counterparts, but somehow the usual suspects don't become upset about "hate speech," et al.

Malkin is a demagogue, imho, but that has nothing to do with her race, just the tone of her writing.

Yes, some on the left do scrutinize themselves constantly for any hint of prejudicial language--and and I've more than once witnessed people who do that suddenly say the most vile racist, homophobic, sexist things about any member of a minority group who would dare to intellectually question their beliefs or take a position they do not approve of. I believe Malkin helps to demonstrate this phenomenon precisely.

I don't consider The Nation to be a liberal magazine at all by the way. Neither do a lot of those who read or write for it.

Ausman: instead of dismissing Malkin as a demagogue, without even trying to support that claim, why not address the points I raised? Why not discuss the liberal commentators, cartoonists, and "leaders" (in quotes because I'm including clutural as well as political) who have been publically and blantantly racist, especially with regards to black conservatives?

The very fact that these comments exist negate your claim that I have my "head in a box," and that the idea is "laughable."

In fact, why not try to argue a position with factual support, instead of argument by declamation? "Jim Ausman has just declared this position laughable. Conservatives the world over are rocked back on their heels by this new development." Feh.

Your own claims merely illustrate your own dogmatic beliefs. I, on the other hand, can (and have) cited specific regular instances of racist remarks from the liberal/democratic hoi polloi which have stimulated no protest from the rank and file, although someone mentioned recently that the former head of the NAACP is finally objecting to the nasty comments about Rice, in public. That's a start.

In my opinion, the student derserved an "F" for his poor paper. That Communist professor also deserves and "F", for "Fired". And perhaps a "B", for "Blacklisted". Or for "Balanced", balanced out, countered by a pro-American, anti-Communist professor.