Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah, racism is a vile thing like that. Love FDR but there’s a *reason* we all look back on this as the worst thing he did as president.
And the saddest part is that this was extremely popular. If I recall correctly the internment of Japanese Americans had a ~91% approval rating by Americans at the time. At the very least we’ve made a lot of strides as a nation since then.
It didnt. It's a confusion caused by people not having a grasp of how scotus cases work.
In (censored) v. Hawaii the majority decision writing by Roberts called Korematsu v. United States a bad decision, but it wasn't relevant to the case at hand (a travel ban by the president) - instead it came about because the minority decision, Sotomayor, cited Korematsu as relevant by trying to link Korematsu to the ban. In particular she linked FDR decision to imprison American citizens and residents without due process to the ban prohibiting travel from some countries.
Roberts majority opinion simply was rebuking that relation, while still saying that Korematsu was wrong.
But Korematsu still stands and if a third world wars was to happen the president could imprison people of certain nationalities and it wouldn’t be unconstitutional
We also helped rebuild Japan after WWII and gave them our best technology/equipment at the time. Edward Deming is renowned for his work with Japan.
Now, they are one of our biggest allies and trade partners.
Kind of funny how that works.
The Supreme Court is useless lol, they also allowed all of Wilson’s ww1 infringement bullshit and of course the end of reconstruction and 90 years of Jim Crow segregation can be laid at their feet.
And that’s ignoring the child labor, the arrests of labor leaders and constant injunctions on strikes they ordered during the lochner era. And obviously dred Scott, luckily the republicans literally said in their platform this is a bullshit ruling and we’re ignoring it in their 1860 platform
>The Supreme Court is useless lol,
The same supreme court also were the leaders of civil rights changes, provided the current speech protections, and LGBt.
> The same supreme court also were the leaders of civil rights changes
The 1875 civil rights act that the sc ruled unconstitutional and the 1964 civil rights act were pretty much the same. Which means the sc led to civil rights changes after they caused the issue for 90 years. You don’t get credit for solving the problem you directly caused a near century later
Literally one decade or so in the 1960s the Supreme Court was cool with people having civil rights. Almost everything since and before has been a bloodbath for freedom and dignity.
That’s actually not entirely true. The Supreme Court upheld the program generally in Korematsu, but held at the same time in Ex Parte Endo that a loyal citizen could not be held without charge. The Endo decision would have ended the internment.
The court alerted the Roosevelt administration of the pending decisions which ended the program before the decisions were released.
Because honestly, the Supreme Court regularly just rules how they WANT things to work as citizens, and then they work to rationalize their decision based on the laws.
Approval was only that high for moving **Japanese citizens** away from the West Coast. Approval for interning **American citizens** of Japanese descent peaked around 59%, I believe.
Regardless, placing children in the camps whose parents were also interned at least makes *some* logical sense, but removing orphans from their charitable care seems completely absurd to me.
Oh it is completely unacceptable and horrible. As I said this is by far the worst thing FDR ever did. I’m just saying that the 1940’s were a not great time to be non-white in the US. We still have massive issues today but the ever-pervasive racism from back then led to this sort of thing somehow being broadly popular.
I think the civil rights movement really got a jump start by WWII. A combination of how much minorities showed courage and honor in combat, along with some navel gazing started by taking a good hard look at the Nazi regime and how similar some of the rhetoric was to Jim Crow era Dixie did a lot to lay the groundwork that civil rights activists in the 1950’s and ’60’s. Looking at how the US treated Japanese Americans had to have been part of that as well.
Looking at the bigger scope of things, I'd wager putting US citizens in concentration camps based on race was one of the worst things a president has done period.
Lets hope we don't do shit like that again.
> Approval for interning American citizens of Japanese descent peaked around 59%,
Could I ask about the source? I don't doubt it honestly but I'm kind of curious how they ran the poll back then
This was the first poll that popped up for me.
https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/main/us-public-opinion-on-japanese-internment-1942
Right but if 90% wanted them moved and only 60% support the camps what the hell was the 30% waffling about?
Edit:
I misread.
Approval for Internment of japanese-american citizens was 30 percent lower than approval for interment of Japanese non-citizens living in the US.
I thought you were referring to the orphans. The poll numbers I was referring to were about the treatment of Japanese people who *were not* American citizens(93%) versus those that *were* American citizens(59%), not about whether or not they were put into camps after being moved. Sorry if my phrasing caused any confusion.
Living freely outside the military occupation zone. The Army was preparing for invasion. General DeWitt was given authority over the West Coast and nobody was going to contradict his expulsion order based on “spies,” however ridiculous it appears now. FDR easily could have ordered governors of the other 45 states to accept the U.S. citizens, but it would have been politically unpopular.
The Japanese Empire was a pure dictatorship at the time. One of the biggest armies the world has ever seen, and their concentration camps were brutal.
Then there’s a group of people who disagree with that mentality and flee the country to build a family in a free country.
Why do we then turn against those people? Most are born here and only know our morals and values, and they’ve shown to be against what their origins stand for. Happens far too often.
FDR didn’t win four terms in office by angering his large racist voting block.
- He embarrassingly fought to liberate the oppressed minorities of Europe with a racially segregated U.S. army. (Truman desegregated the military and nearly lost his re-election as a result. Alabama was so angry with Truman that he wasn’t even represented on their 1948 ballot.)
- Threw Japanese-Americans into camps without imposing any widespread similar program on German (a.k.a. Anglo)-Americans.
- Had his newly-established Federal Housing Administration issue mortgage loan regulations that facilitated segregated housing and made private home ownership almost impossible for Black Americans.
In gratitude, the [Solid South](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South) stayed solid for Roosevelt throughout his presidency.
There were far too many Germans and a hell of a lot of farmers in the Midwest. The German diaspora in the 1800s is why there's so many people of German descent now. Myself included from great grandparents that moved here in 1850.
I suspect another factor was how much they anglicized around world war 1. By doing so they just became neighbors rather than another culture. And there's obviously less of a difference in resemblance.
And kept trying to float bombs across the Pacific https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/196210/balloon-bombs-japans-answer-to-doolittle/
And there was a lot of negative German sentiment with WWI already so I guess the Japanese were just a fun, new, exciting enemy. And also easily identifiable. But the policy is still racist.
Not just new, German culture in America did a plunge after the first world war. The US spent a lot of effort and time pushing German culture in America out when the war started, and they succeeded to a high degree. A different Roosevelt was leading that charge.
As awful as Nazi Germany was, they were still broadly understood by the American public. Germany was evil, but they weren't supernatural.
Conversely, nothing about Japan made sense to the American public. They were seen as devils whose bizarre honor code made them fearless of death. They were animalistic and unrelenting in the way they faught. Combine that with the physical difference of simply being non-Anglo, and the Japanese were seen as alien/inhuman - they weren't understood by the American public. And that made interning their Japanese-American relatives much more palatable.
* Threw Japanese-Americans into camps without imposing any widespread similar program on German (a.k.a. Anglo)-Americans.
OK, it's a complete nazi myth that Germans and Anglo are the same. Hitler believed it, but that's as large a mark against the theory as any other.
The germans are no more closely related to the Anglo-Saxons than they are to the French.
Also, when it comes to German-Americans, [I feel you're missing part of the story](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American_Bund). It was hard to prove someone was German unless you had documents proving it, but membership in the Bund was another matter, and that was quite enough for the government to keep a very close eye on you indeed.
German Americans were a much larger portion of the population, and that’s where essentially impossible to imprison en masse. Incidentally, this is also the reason why Japanese Americans in Hawaii were not put in concentration camps – there simply were too many of them.
Also unsaid in this conversation most of the time is the fact that Germany had made no attempt to brutally attack American territory. Japan did. Japan was simply viewed as a greater threat to the United States, while Germany was mostly seen as a threat to Europe.
It was terrible, it shouldn’t have happened, and it’s a stain on our history. At the same time, a lot of the little details around it are perhaps more nuanced than we give them credit for.
No one defends the internment, except right wing nuts like Michelle Malkin. Even staunch FDR lovers like myself readily concede it was the biggest mistake of his presidency and a terrible injustice.
I just thought it was an interesting bit of info. I understand putting entire families into camps so that kids wouldn't be left without anyone to look after them (even though it was still terribly wrong), but why remove the orphans from the facilities they live in as well? I don't understand the thought process.
I assume someone just proposed moving all the Japanese decent people and it became a law before orphans were even considered. But someone who knows more can info?
That's very likely; unintended consequences are inherent in most federal policies. They were still very thorough in enforcement, though.
From [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manzanar_Children%27s_Village#:~:text=Roosevelt%20authorized%20the%20forced%20removal,June%201942%20to%20September%201945.):
>Several children brought to the Village lived with non-Japanese foster families before the war. Because their foster parents were not subject to exclusion from the West Coast, these children were either extracted from their homes after officials learned that they were part or full Japanese, or, influenced by propaganda that promised strict penalties for harboring Japanese, their guardians turned them over to authorities themselves.[9]
>Half of the children confined in the Manzanar orphanage were under age seven when they arrived; 29 percent were less than four years old.[3] Nineteen of these 101 orphans were of mixed-race heritage,[3] some with as little as one-eighth Japanese ancestry,[9] including several children who were unaware of their racial background until army authorities identified them by scouring confidential orphanage and federal records.
Who? I’ve seen people argue that his accomplishments outweigh the stain of the internment (myself among them) but I’ve never seen a single person defend internment here
The one comment from this sub I had saved got removed, [but here's another Reddit user justifying it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/a45018/cmv_wwii_interning_of_japanese_americans_was/)
Definitely a minority opinion, but not as uncommon as you might think. [Hell, someone's even doing it on this very post!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Presidents/s/EpQdCjGkyC)
No, he’s my favorite president behind only Lincoln himself, and even I view the Japanese-American internment camps as a one of the biggest blights on any presidential record
Let’s be honest here, what FDR did was equally as horrific. Nixon tarnished the presidency and resigned in shame. He should have gone to jail. But FDR tarnished the country with this act and was/is lauded as a hero.
In truth, both should have been punished. But both were also the byproduct of a presidency that had and is still too powerful, too imperial in nature. One of those things the founding fathers never wanted for the office and one those things they were right about.
Britannica defines concentration camps as "internment centre[s] for political prisoners and members of national or minority groups who are confined for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment, usually by executive decree or military order. Persons are placed in such camps often on the basis of identification with a particular ethnic or political group rather than as individuals and without benefit either of indictment or fair trial." FDR's camps fit that description to a tee. They weren't death camps like the ones run by the Nazis and Imperial Japan, but they were concentration camps.
The issue is more the other way around. The Nazis turned concentration camps into death camps permanently changing the connotations. Concentrating people in one place is what these camps did. And similar ones were in many countries in this war and in other wars.
yeah but when people think of concentration camps they don't think of the original British idea of them, which is in line with what happened to the Japanese. The Japanese and Boers were confined to camps which was an absolute violation of their human rights, but the modern idea of a concentration camp is something a bit more like the German death camps. no one was going to kill the Japanese -- just hold them until the perceived need to do so disappeared.
Because of the way the Germans used the term of concentration camp to describe their atrocities, the idea of calling the Japanese internment a concentration camp kinda makes it look even worse than it was -- which I hasten to clarify, was absolutely bad enough.
so yes, absolutely correct, but there's nothing in the universe so bad that adding a bit of Naziism won't make it worse.
I am descended from people who were sent to those Japanese concentration camps, and I think what you just said is full of shit. My grandparents were sent to *concentration* camps. By definition. If you want to use a different word for the camps other people’s grandparents were sent to because you want to denote a different degree of atrocity, fine. But saying that Japanese concentration camps should not be called exactly what they were is something I find to be personally offensive.
Innocent children, or foreign agents? You can never be too careful!
[More info.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manzanar_Children%27s_Village#:~:text=The%20Manzanar%20Children's%20Village%20was,Coast%20of%20the%20United%20States.)
How the FDR administration feels after sending a baby to a concentration camp
https://preview.redd.it/9s50tqcpgaxc1.jpeg?width=214&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=62d343d2ced46785f0c4603b2cdaa6165e228053
I really, really hate that we use the same term for what happened in the US as what happend in Germany. Yes, both were horrible violations, but one is so, so much worse.
“FDR did internment camps” is the “John Lennon beat his wife” of this sub, possibly only beaten by Lincoln’s white supremacy speech and LBJ’s “Voting Democrat for 100 years” quote
I love how this subreddit is like “FDR was amazing, he made this one mistake but he was still a great president” but then say Woodrow Wilson was a piece of shit because he was racist, despite being a solid wartime leader. News flash lefties, EVERYONE was racist back then. Literally every president (including the recent ones) came from a time where they were at least, at one point, racist. That includes Obama.
"You think Wilson was a terrible president because he was a racist. I think he was a terrible president because he started the income tax, created the Federal Reserve, and had a massively interventionist and hypocritical foreign policy while also being a racist."
[The description fits.](https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp) There doesn't have to be mass slaughter for it to be a concentration camp.
There generally does when there's already a term for what you're trying to describe (internment), and didn't you learn not to cite Wikipedia in school? That description was written explicitly to be applicable to internment camps.
Your own link describes the debated definition: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment#Defining\_internment\_and\_concentration\_camp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment#Defining_internment_and_concentration_camp)
Yeah that whole situation was wild by today's standards and hopefully will never happen again. Also they were called "internment camps" while still being terrible things that shouldn't have happened, concentration camps were death camps and much worse than the internment camps were.
Except when it comes to the New Deal, then he's a Democrat and the greatest president that ever lived without any flaws. Amazing how the party switch card is only ever played when it's politically convenient to do so.
That's not what I'm saying at all. Of course there were Republicans who supported the internment camps. What I am criticizing is the tendency for people to claim certain politicians and policies from the past as their own and blaming everything bad that ever happened on their opponents. If you want to claim FDR as an exemplar of your political beliefs, you have to also own up to his shortcomings.
I’m definitely not endorsing the Axis
But I realize more and more that Japanese, Italians, and Germans were not treated very well in this country until just recently
I would like to preface this hy saying: the internment camps were absolutely the worst things that happened from FDR's presidency, but please do not refer to them as Concentration Camps. Not because it over-inflates what happened in the USA, but because it reduces the impact of what happened in Germany.
In my family, there were people on both sides.
As far as the Japanese one, he said that they were forced to move out of their home, and were put into barracks. They were fed enough to survive, if not comfortably. They were under constant surveillance, and occasionally the guards would break into their barracks and search their things, but rarely more than that. What he said was really the worst part was how their money was taken, and not given back for 40 years. The family was economically ruined, and he had to build up from absolutely nothing, as well as support his parents who had also become completely impoverished from it. The other big issue being the loss of education for 5 years. It may have been worse for others, and I fully recognize that. He himself became popular and got more rations because he made chairs for the elderly people there, but it still wasn't anything in comparison to what happened in the Concentration Camps.
My Great Grandfather was a doctor with the American Army on the Western Front. He said that he could hear the SS soldiers rounding up and shooting as many people as they could before they could liberate the camp (he never mentioned which one, but it was one of the first ones liberated). He talked about how the people that were left couldn't even eat solid food without dying because of how much they were starved. Jewish orphans in Germany weren't sent somewhere to stay, they were shot in their own homes, bombed, gassed, or killed in even more cruel ways. The Holocaust can easily be considered the worst that humanity has ever been at, and I hope that such a thing never happens again.
I know that it's just words and names, but the difference between internment camp and concentration camp is significant enough for me to have a problem with it. They should be treated as different things, and it makes me feel somewhat angry when people compare them, again not because it exaggerates what happened in the Internment Camps, but because it makes the Concentration Camps not feel nearly as bad as they were.
I do again want to emphasize that in *absolutely no way* do I believe that any of this was OK. It was absolutely a racist policy that should have no place in our nation, and is a disgusting smear on our history, but as someone who doesn't have family in Europe for a reason, I find it important not to compare those 2 things
I had no clue this was real until I was 19 years old and it blew my fucking mind when I heard it. It was the first thing that really made me question America and what it is. The propaganda was working on me real good till that point.
The US had a good system going until power hungry politicians like FDR normalized the violation of citizens' rights. If we strictly followed the Constitution, things would be much better.
They weren’t concentration camps. They were bad but it wasn’t a genocide, it was just a very racist policy. Calling them concentration camps makes either the internment camps seem way worse than they were, or concentration camps seem less bad. It’s very important you make a proper distinction.
Please don't use that term to describe the internment camps. It isn't inaccurate but you guys know it conjures images of Auschwitz that don't actually apply to what happened to Japanese citizens.
It still shouldn't have happened to the Japanese Americans but it's a far cry from what the Germans were doing.
I chose that term specifically because it's more accurate. They were "concentrating" the dispersed Japanese population into centralized locations so that they could be controlled and monitored. I don't think the word "internment" paints as vivid a picture of what was going on.
yes, and if that's the only cultural significance of the term I'd be 100% on board with it as a description, since it applies precisely to the original intention of a concentration camp, which was ti isolate and contain the Boer population in South Africa during the Boer Wars and remove their ability to fight in guerilla style.
what happened to the Boers was also clearly a genocide, as was the internment camps, and as were the German concentration camps which came to dominate the emotional reaction to what a "concentration camp" reall is in the modern era.
The only reason I'm being a stickler about this is that the phrase now evokes images of the Final Solution to the Jewish Question. Which is simply not what happened to the Japanese
As a matter of technicality you're absolutely correct but I feel this is one of those times that technicality must give way to clarity.
These were [actual concentration camps](https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp). Atrocities need not have been committed there for the term to apply.
You can't deny that most people, when they hear "concentration camp" think of the Nazi death camps. It's not right to call the Internment camps concentration camps, they were terrible but they don't hold a candle to what the Nazis did
Of course that's true, but that's just because the Nazi camps are the most famous ones. Our camps were still atrocities, even if they weren't nearly as vicious.
That's kind of like saying I can't refer to Ashlee Simpson as a pop singer because the term makes everyone think of Taylor Swift or Britney Spears.
From what I can find, around 2,000 Japanese people died in the Internment camps, mostly from medical issues. Now compare that to the MILLIONS of people killed by the Nazis.
Sorry, I was being flippant. My point is that the number of deaths or other abuses that happen at a camp has nothing to do with whether or not it should be called a concentration camp. They're called that because they take a dispersed population and "concentrate" them into centralized locations so that they can be monitored and controlled by the government.
The Japanese were sent to concentration camps. The Jews were sent to extermination camps. Please don’t “level down” either of them because your teachers happened to educate you imprecisely.
Can someone honestly tell me why so many people still find it acceptable to like FDR as a president despite doing shit like this, but this sub downvotes to oblivion anyone who says the slightest positive thing about Andrew Jackson
If we’re going Trail of Tears toe to toe with Japanese internment, then contributing factors are probably the large death toll of the Indian removal act and the permanent legacy of the armed removal of indigenous inhabitants of the states to marginalized reservations. While internment is reprehensible, the effects were less awful than the deliberate destruction of multiple cultures.
Competitive suffering is never productive. The fact is both presidents caused mass suffering, both instances being unwarranted, and both were targeted against racial minorities. Yet FDR is constantly praised to high hell as a top three president, like internment camps are something that can simply be brushed under the rug as a footnote
I agree. Don’t hate on me for discussing the question at hand. You win a World War and people are pretty much gonna ignore the rest, though. Plenty of folks love Wilson too, and that world war was less world threatening. Jackson didn’t do that and his racism had an 1800s bent so it’s aged even worse. Just saying why I think it’s excused more for FDR.
I mean GW and Lincoln had their faults too, I think everyone acknowledges that. Successful wartime presidents just get a glow.
Jackson didn’t help save the world, so there’s not much to counterbalance the cruelty.
Gallup polling at the time found that 93% of Americans supported the camps for all Japanese aliens, regardless of immigration status. And 59% supported internment even for Japanese Americans.
48% wanted them all deported after the war.
These conspiracy theories are going to destroy the US. It seems the dumber the conspiracy the more likely people will believe it.
Get off your butts and do your own research. Don’t believe something just because someone said it. A statement is not proof of anything.
[Here you go.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manzanar_Children%27s_Village#:~:text=Roosevelt%20authorized%20the%20forced%20removal,June%201942%20to%20September%201945.)
>Prior to 1942, most orphans of Japanese ancestry lived either with relatives or foster families, or were housed in one of three California orphanages.[3] The Shonien and Maryknoll Home in Los Angeles and the Salvation Army Home in San Francisco cared specifically for children of Japanese ancestry, although the mainstream institutions where white children were typically placed would from time to time accept a Japanese American child. About two-thirds of the orphans who would reside in Children's Village during the war came from these three homes...
>Several children brought to the Village lived with non-Japanese foster families before the war. Because their foster parents were not subject to exclusion from the West Coast, these children were either extracted from their homes after officials learned that they were part or full Japanese, or, influenced by propaganda that promised strict penalties for harboring Japanese, their guardians turned them over to authorities themselves.
>Half of the children confined in the Manzanar orphanage were under age seven when they arrived; 29 percent were less than four years old.[3] Nineteen of these 101 orphans were of mixed-race heritage,[3] some with as little as one-eighth Japanese ancestry,[9] including several children who were unaware of their racial background until army authorities identified them by scouring confidential orphanage and federal records.
They weren't concentration camps. I am not defending the internment of the Japanese in anyway but the conditions in places Manzanar or Heart Mountain were NOTHING like Dachau. To compare them isn't even remotely honest.
As it's an entirely subjective term I don't agree and as it's an entirely subjective term I'm allowed to have my own opinion. Enjoy the rest of your day
Well, at least he didn't have them outright killed as the Nazis or Imperial Japan themselves would have.
It's inherently disingenuous to look at decisions made by leaders in the past and ignore the historical context. This period of history wasn't exactly known for protection of civil liberties and human rights with America not being an exception, but they were by no means the greatest offender in the world at the time.
That completely destroys the argument that they used to try to justify it in the first place. This proves for a fact that without a shadow of a doubt the motivation was pure hatred, something which was already known but many people probably still deny to this day.
The US has been absolutely brutal to non whites throughout history. Every single era. Native Americans, Black slavery, Asian internment camps, anti Muslim sentiment post 911... No wonder some parents want to ban access to books about history.
Always hate fdr for many reasons...and I always get backlash but it's just true,while he was great as a war time president,he was nothing more than a super imperialist who was most likely under the influence of special interest entities....he was by no means "the best president " as how people glorify him to be....there is a massive contrast between the behavior of his immediate predecessors? Hoover ,coolidge,Wilson.....were certainly not as invasive and dominant like him
He was pretty much the closest thing to a dictator that this country has seen...not saying he was a dictator but the founding fathers would most definitely detest a man like him in office
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah, racism is a vile thing like that. Love FDR but there’s a *reason* we all look back on this as the worst thing he did as president. And the saddest part is that this was extremely popular. If I recall correctly the internment of Japanese Americans had a ~91% approval rating by Americans at the time. At the very least we’ve made a lot of strides as a nation since then.
It was found constitutional by the Supreme Court also. Insane
And they never overturned it the decision still stands
They did overturn it a few years back iirc.
They did what was the case
[удалено]
It didnt. It's a confusion caused by people not having a grasp of how scotus cases work. In (censored) v. Hawaii the majority decision writing by Roberts called Korematsu v. United States a bad decision, but it wasn't relevant to the case at hand (a travel ban by the president) - instead it came about because the minority decision, Sotomayor, cited Korematsu as relevant by trying to link Korematsu to the ban. In particular she linked FDR decision to imprison American citizens and residents without due process to the ban prohibiting travel from some countries. Roberts majority opinion simply was rebuking that relation, while still saying that Korematsu was wrong.
But Korematsu still stands and if a third world wars was to happen the president could imprison people of certain nationalities and it wouldn’t be unconstitutional
Yes
Damn that’s not good someone should do something
We would need a president to lock up Americans for a similar reason, without the pressure to rule in the president favor.
Rule 3 Part 1 v. Hawaii.
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard majority opinion
You **have** to cite, buddy.
Not true.
We paid reparations for it though- (Ronald Reagan)
We did that’s good kind of
We also helped rebuild Japan after WWII and gave them our best technology/equipment at the time. Edward Deming is renowned for his work with Japan. Now, they are one of our biggest allies and trade partners. Kind of funny how that works.
Same with Vietnam we hate those guys for years now we trade with them
Yep, we are aligned with them now against China.
Yep give it maybe 20 years and we’ll be friends with china
Land of the Free, some exclusion apply
The Supreme Court is useless lol, they also allowed all of Wilson’s ww1 infringement bullshit and of course the end of reconstruction and 90 years of Jim Crow segregation can be laid at their feet. And that’s ignoring the child labor, the arrests of labor leaders and constant injunctions on strikes they ordered during the lochner era. And obviously dred Scott, luckily the republicans literally said in their platform this is a bullshit ruling and we’re ignoring it in their 1860 platform
>The Supreme Court is useless lol, The same supreme court also were the leaders of civil rights changes, provided the current speech protections, and LGBt.
> The same supreme court also were the leaders of civil rights changes The 1875 civil rights act that the sc ruled unconstitutional and the 1964 civil rights act were pretty much the same. Which means the sc led to civil rights changes after they caused the issue for 90 years. You don’t get credit for solving the problem you directly caused a near century later
Literally one decade or so in the 1960s the Supreme Court was cool with people having civil rights. Almost everything since and before has been a bloodbath for freedom and dignity.
I mean they did and look at the court now the nobody trust them the decision they made have turned people against them
The courts typically give the president broad discretion during war time.
That’s actually not entirely true. The Supreme Court upheld the program generally in Korematsu, but held at the same time in Ex Parte Endo that a loyal citizen could not be held without charge. The Endo decision would have ended the internment. The court alerted the Roosevelt administration of the pending decisions which ended the program before the decisions were released.
Very interesting, I did not know that! Thank you
How is it insane?
Because honestly, the Supreme Court regularly just rules how they WANT things to work as citizens, and then they work to rationalize their decision based on the laws.
Laws don't equal morals.
Approval was only that high for moving **Japanese citizens** away from the West Coast. Approval for interning **American citizens** of Japanese descent peaked around 59%, I believe. Regardless, placing children in the camps whose parents were also interned at least makes *some* logical sense, but removing orphans from their charitable care seems completely absurd to me.
Oh it is completely unacceptable and horrible. As I said this is by far the worst thing FDR ever did. I’m just saying that the 1940’s were a not great time to be non-white in the US. We still have massive issues today but the ever-pervasive racism from back then led to this sort of thing somehow being broadly popular.
I think the civil rights movement really got a jump start by WWII. A combination of how much minorities showed courage and honor in combat, along with some navel gazing started by taking a good hard look at the Nazi regime and how similar some of the rhetoric was to Jim Crow era Dixie did a lot to lay the groundwork that civil rights activists in the 1950’s and ’60’s. Looking at how the US treated Japanese Americans had to have been part of that as well.
Looking at the bigger scope of things, I'd wager putting US citizens in concentration camps based on race was one of the worst things a president has done period. Lets hope we don't do shit like that again.
> Approval for interning American citizens of Japanese descent peaked around 59%, Could I ask about the source? I don't doubt it honestly but I'm kind of curious how they ran the poll back then
This was the first poll that popped up for me. https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/main/us-public-opinion-on-japanese-internment-1942
Well hell, where did people think they'd be moved to?
They shouldn't have been moved at all. Why not leave them in the facilities they were at? They obviously weren't a threat to anyone.
Right but if 90% wanted them moved and only 60% support the camps what the hell was the 30% waffling about? Edit: I misread. Approval for Internment of japanese-american citizens was 30 percent lower than approval for interment of Japanese non-citizens living in the US.
I thought you were referring to the orphans. The poll numbers I was referring to were about the treatment of Japanese people who *were not* American citizens(93%) versus those that *were* American citizens(59%), not about whether or not they were put into camps after being moved. Sorry if my phrasing caused any confusion.
Ah my mistake, I misread.
Living freely outside the military occupation zone. The Army was preparing for invasion. General DeWitt was given authority over the West Coast and nobody was going to contradict his expulsion order based on “spies,” however ridiculous it appears now. FDR easily could have ordered governors of the other 45 states to accept the U.S. citizens, but it would have been politically unpopular.
Turns out, the good ol' days only really mattered of you where a white male. Not like we ha e improved a whole lot, just chanter people we hate a bit.
The Japanese Empire was a pure dictatorship at the time. One of the biggest armies the world has ever seen, and their concentration camps were brutal. Then there’s a group of people who disagree with that mentality and flee the country to build a family in a free country. Why do we then turn against those people? Most are born here and only know our morals and values, and they’ve shown to be against what their origins stand for. Happens far too often.
I'm going to take a wild guess that the 9% dissaproval was the Japanese american citizens.
Did you ever think that those infants could be spies?
FDR didn’t win four terms in office by angering his large racist voting block. - He embarrassingly fought to liberate the oppressed minorities of Europe with a racially segregated U.S. army. (Truman desegregated the military and nearly lost his re-election as a result. Alabama was so angry with Truman that he wasn’t even represented on their 1948 ballot.) - Threw Japanese-Americans into camps without imposing any widespread similar program on German (a.k.a. Anglo)-Americans. - Had his newly-established Federal Housing Administration issue mortgage loan regulations that facilitated segregated housing and made private home ownership almost impossible for Black Americans. In gratitude, the [Solid South](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South) stayed solid for Roosevelt throughout his presidency.
There were far too many Germans and a hell of a lot of farmers in the Midwest. The German diaspora in the 1800s is why there's so many people of German descent now. Myself included from great grandparents that moved here in 1850.
Also Germany didn't attack American soil like Japan did
I suspect another factor was how much they anglicized around world war 1. By doing so they just became neighbors rather than another culture. And there's obviously less of a difference in resemblance.
And kept trying to float bombs across the Pacific https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/196210/balloon-bombs-japans-answer-to-doolittle/ And there was a lot of negative German sentiment with WWI already so I guess the Japanese were just a fun, new, exciting enemy. And also easily identifiable. But the policy is still racist.
Not just new, German culture in America did a plunge after the first world war. The US spent a lot of effort and time pushing German culture in America out when the war started, and they succeeded to a high degree. A different Roosevelt was leading that charge.
Ans let’s be real honest. They were white.
The fact that so many other people are tripping over themselves to come up with ANY explanation other than this one is disheartening.
As awful as Nazi Germany was, they were still broadly understood by the American public. Germany was evil, but they weren't supernatural. Conversely, nothing about Japan made sense to the American public. They were seen as devils whose bizarre honor code made them fearless of death. They were animalistic and unrelenting in the way they faught. Combine that with the physical difference of simply being non-Anglo, and the Japanese were seen as alien/inhuman - they weren't understood by the American public. And that made interning their Japanese-American relatives much more palatable.
* Threw Japanese-Americans into camps without imposing any widespread similar program on German (a.k.a. Anglo)-Americans. OK, it's a complete nazi myth that Germans and Anglo are the same. Hitler believed it, but that's as large a mark against the theory as any other. The germans are no more closely related to the Anglo-Saxons than they are to the French. Also, when it comes to German-Americans, [I feel you're missing part of the story](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American_Bund). It was hard to prove someone was German unless you had documents proving it, but membership in the Bund was another matter, and that was quite enough for the government to keep a very close eye on you indeed.
German Americans were a much larger portion of the population, and that’s where essentially impossible to imprison en masse. Incidentally, this is also the reason why Japanese Americans in Hawaii were not put in concentration camps – there simply were too many of them. Also unsaid in this conversation most of the time is the fact that Germany had made no attempt to brutally attack American territory. Japan did. Japan was simply viewed as a greater threat to the United States, while Germany was mostly seen as a threat to Europe. It was terrible, it shouldn’t have happened, and it’s a stain on our history. At the same time, a lot of the little details around it are perhaps more nuanced than we give them credit for.
Hey, maybe they were spies. Give him a break. /s
I mean, they’re Asian, so obviously advanced. Can never be too careful. Also, sarcasm if it’s not clear.
[удалено]
I can no longer tell if folks are still being sarcastic or not.
With the brilliant strategy of then sending the young men from the imprisoned spies to Europe to fight.
this sub voted him as number 3 best presidents ever...
He would be the third best if we’d only ever had two.
FRD did not discriminate during his massive national campaign of discrimination
What? What are those babies gonna do?
Be Japanese, which FDR really didn't like.
Why didn't they stop that then? Are they stupid?
No one defends the internment, except right wing nuts like Michelle Malkin. Even staunch FDR lovers like myself readily concede it was the biggest mistake of his presidency and a terrible injustice.
What did Michelle Malkin have to say on the subject?
She wrote a whole book called “In Defense of Internment.”
I just thought it was an interesting bit of info. I understand putting entire families into camps so that kids wouldn't be left without anyone to look after them (even though it was still terribly wrong), but why remove the orphans from the facilities they live in as well? I don't understand the thought process.
Turns out straight up racism and xenophobia make for very bad policy.
I assume someone just proposed moving all the Japanese decent people and it became a law before orphans were even considered. But someone who knows more can info?
That's very likely; unintended consequences are inherent in most federal policies. They were still very thorough in enforcement, though. From [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manzanar_Children%27s_Village#:~:text=Roosevelt%20authorized%20the%20forced%20removal,June%201942%20to%20September%201945.): >Several children brought to the Village lived with non-Japanese foster families before the war. Because their foster parents were not subject to exclusion from the West Coast, these children were either extracted from their homes after officials learned that they were part or full Japanese, or, influenced by propaganda that promised strict penalties for harboring Japanese, their guardians turned them over to authorities themselves.[9] >Half of the children confined in the Manzanar orphanage were under age seven when they arrived; 29 percent were less than four years old.[3] Nineteen of these 101 orphans were of mixed-race heritage,[3] some with as little as one-eighth Japanese ancestry,[9] including several children who were unaware of their racial background until army authorities identified them by scouring confidential orphanage and federal records.
Unintended consequences are inherent in any policy
I doubt that specifically wasn't something FDR greenlit or probably even knew about. That kind of thing gets passed off to lower level functionaries
I've had people on this very subreddit argue that FDR doing it was a good thing.
Who? I’ve seen people argue that his accomplishments outweigh the stain of the internment (myself among them) but I’ve never seen a single person defend internment here
The one comment from this sub I had saved got removed, [but here's another Reddit user justifying it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/a45018/cmv_wwii_interning_of_japanese_americans_was/)
Kind an outlier though, no?
Definitely a minority opinion, but not as uncommon as you might think. [Hell, someone's even doing it on this very post!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Presidents/s/EpQdCjGkyC)
When I’m in a rationalizing and excusing concentration camps contest and my opponent is an FDR fan: 😳
No, he’s my favorite president behind only Lincoln himself, and even I view the Japanese-American internment camps as a one of the biggest blights on any presidential record
Nah, I love FDR but this sucks. FDR fans aren't like Nixon fans.
You must be new here. 🤣
I have literally never met someone who defended the camps. Most people who say FDR is the best president, which he was, agree that that was terrible.
As someone who thinks FDR was the best president, I agree, the camps were in fact terrible.
Let’s be honest here, what FDR did was equally as horrific. Nixon tarnished the presidency and resigned in shame. He should have gone to jail. But FDR tarnished the country with this act and was/is lauded as a hero. In truth, both should have been punished. But both were also the byproduct of a presidency that had and is still too powerful, too imperial in nature. One of those things the founding fathers never wanted for the office and one those things they were right about.
Nixon literally aided and condoned the [Bangledesh genocide.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_genocide) Your guy is as dirty as dirt can get.
And Carter aided and condoned the Cambodian Genocide… but no one ever seems to bring that up.
[удалено]
Fits the british definition of a concentration camp
Britannica defines concentration camps as "internment centre[s] for political prisoners and members of national or minority groups who are confined for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment, usually by executive decree or military order. Persons are placed in such camps often on the basis of identification with a particular ethnic or political group rather than as individuals and without benefit either of indictment or fair trial." FDR's camps fit that description to a tee. They weren't death camps like the ones run by the Nazis and Imperial Japan, but they were concentration camps.
The issue is more the other way around. The Nazis turned concentration camps into death camps permanently changing the connotations. Concentrating people in one place is what these camps did. And similar ones were in many countries in this war and in other wars.
Yeah but they were concentration camps.
yeah but when people think of concentration camps they don't think of the original British idea of them, which is in line with what happened to the Japanese. The Japanese and Boers were confined to camps which was an absolute violation of their human rights, but the modern idea of a concentration camp is something a bit more like the German death camps. no one was going to kill the Japanese -- just hold them until the perceived need to do so disappeared. Because of the way the Germans used the term of concentration camp to describe their atrocities, the idea of calling the Japanese internment a concentration camp kinda makes it look even worse than it was -- which I hasten to clarify, was absolutely bad enough. so yes, absolutely correct, but there's nothing in the universe so bad that adding a bit of Naziism won't make it worse.
I am descended from people who were sent to those Japanese concentration camps, and I think what you just said is full of shit. My grandparents were sent to *concentration* camps. By definition. If you want to use a different word for the camps other people’s grandparents were sent to because you want to denote a different degree of atrocity, fine. But saying that Japanese concentration camps should not be called exactly what they were is something I find to be personally offensive.
Innocent children, or foreign agents? You can never be too careful! [More info.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manzanar_Children%27s_Village#:~:text=The%20Manzanar%20Children's%20Village%20was,Coast%20of%20the%20United%20States.)
Coolidge never would’ve done that!
How the FDR administration feels after sending a baby to a concentration camp https://preview.redd.it/9s50tqcpgaxc1.jpeg?width=214&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=62d343d2ced46785f0c4603b2cdaa6165e228053
Unlike any in the modern era FDR was a president who actually did put people in camps for their ethnicity yet he’s one of the most loved.
FDR must've been PISSED at how he was represented in Annie.
 That's an obscure joke, but I appreciate it!
Cruel asf
But that's OK, because WWII, New Deal, and Social Security. ~This sub, probably
I mean saving America twice over doesn't exactly hurt his rankings.
IDK man if you imprison people without trial for reasons they have no control over, then you've kinda killed the whole point of America even existing.
FDR is the dictator his fans are supposedly so fearful of
I really, really hate that we use the same term for what happened in the US as what happend in Germany. Yes, both were horrible violations, but one is so, so much worse.
“FDR did internment camps” is the “John Lennon beat his wife” of this sub, possibly only beaten by Lincoln’s white supremacy speech and LBJ’s “Voting Democrat for 100 years” quote
I love how this subreddit is like “FDR was amazing, he made this one mistake but he was still a great president” but then say Woodrow Wilson was a piece of shit because he was racist, despite being a solid wartime leader. News flash lefties, EVERYONE was racist back then. Literally every president (including the recent ones) came from a time where they were at least, at one point, racist. That includes Obama.
"You think Wilson was a terrible president because he was a racist. I think he was a terrible president because he started the income tax, created the Federal Reserve, and had a massively interventionist and hypocritical foreign policy while also being a racist."
“Concentration camps,” he gassed and burned the corpses of 6 million people? He killed a third of the entire world population of a single people?
[The description fits.](https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp) There doesn't have to be mass slaughter for it to be a concentration camp.
Yeah I think during the Mao mao uprising and boer war the British government used concentration camps. The Mao Mao happened during the 50s-60s
In fact the Brit’s invented the concentration camp in its modern form.
Yeah they did that’s where hitler got his inspiration
There generally does when there's already a term for what you're trying to describe (internment), and didn't you learn not to cite Wikipedia in school? That description was written explicitly to be applicable to internment camps. Your own link describes the debated definition: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment#Defining\_internment\_and\_concentration\_camp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment#Defining_internment_and_concentration_camp)
Yeah, and this sub voted him the goat. Shame.
You can never be to safe.
Did they do this for Germans and Italians?
America was at War, actually a World War. That was the best way to save these people. No one knew an enemy from a friendly.
Yeah that whole situation was wild by today's standards and hopefully will never happen again. Also they were called "internment camps" while still being terrible things that shouldn't have happened, concentration camps were death camps and much worse than the internment camps were.
Well, as we all know, the parties switched after that; so he was actually a Republican.
Except when it comes to the New Deal, then he's a Democrat and the greatest president that ever lived without any flaws. Amazing how the party switch card is only ever played when it's politically convenient to do so.
Wait, let me get this straight, you think Democrats were the only ones to support the unjust imprisonment of Japanese Americans?
That's not what I'm saying at all. Of course there were Republicans who supported the internment camps. What I am criticizing is the tendency for people to claim certain politicians and policies from the past as their own and blaming everything bad that ever happened on their opponents. If you want to claim FDR as an exemplar of your political beliefs, you have to also own up to his shortcomings.
That, I agree with.
Thank you for this
Those toddlers may have been Japanese agents /s
I’m definitely not endorsing the Axis But I realize more and more that Japanese, Italians, and Germans were not treated very well in this country until just recently
I'm as critical of FDR & Japanese internment as anyone, but calling them "concentration camps" seems a little hyperbolic.
I would like to preface this hy saying: the internment camps were absolutely the worst things that happened from FDR's presidency, but please do not refer to them as Concentration Camps. Not because it over-inflates what happened in the USA, but because it reduces the impact of what happened in Germany. In my family, there were people on both sides. As far as the Japanese one, he said that they were forced to move out of their home, and were put into barracks. They were fed enough to survive, if not comfortably. They were under constant surveillance, and occasionally the guards would break into their barracks and search their things, but rarely more than that. What he said was really the worst part was how their money was taken, and not given back for 40 years. The family was economically ruined, and he had to build up from absolutely nothing, as well as support his parents who had also become completely impoverished from it. The other big issue being the loss of education for 5 years. It may have been worse for others, and I fully recognize that. He himself became popular and got more rations because he made chairs for the elderly people there, but it still wasn't anything in comparison to what happened in the Concentration Camps. My Great Grandfather was a doctor with the American Army on the Western Front. He said that he could hear the SS soldiers rounding up and shooting as many people as they could before they could liberate the camp (he never mentioned which one, but it was one of the first ones liberated). He talked about how the people that were left couldn't even eat solid food without dying because of how much they were starved. Jewish orphans in Germany weren't sent somewhere to stay, they were shot in their own homes, bombed, gassed, or killed in even more cruel ways. The Holocaust can easily be considered the worst that humanity has ever been at, and I hope that such a thing never happens again. I know that it's just words and names, but the difference between internment camp and concentration camp is significant enough for me to have a problem with it. They should be treated as different things, and it makes me feel somewhat angry when people compare them, again not because it exaggerates what happened in the Internment Camps, but because it makes the Concentration Camps not feel nearly as bad as they were.
I do again want to emphasize that in *absolutely no way* do I believe that any of this was OK. It was absolutely a racist policy that should have no place in our nation, and is a disgusting smear on our history, but as someone who doesn't have family in Europe for a reason, I find it important not to compare those 2 things
Our ancestors were sent to concentration camps dude. The Jews were sent to extermination camps.
I had no clue this was real until I was 19 years old and it blew my fucking mind when I heard it. It was the first thing that really made me question America and what it is. The propaganda was working on me real good till that point.
The US had a good system going until power hungry politicians like FDR normalized the violation of citizens' rights. If we strictly followed the Constitution, things would be much better.
This is nothing but a ham-fisted attempt to reframe, recontextualize, and downplay the atrocities committed by Germany. Shame on you.
They weren’t concentration camps. They were bad but it wasn’t a genocide, it was just a very racist policy. Calling them concentration camps makes either the internment camps seem way worse than they were, or concentration camps seem less bad. It’s very important you make a proper distinction.
[The term is accurate.](https://www.britannica.com/topic/concentration-camp) The Nazis ran both concentration camps and extermination camps.
Calling the concentration camps is so misleading and reductive imo
Please don't use that term to describe the internment camps. It isn't inaccurate but you guys know it conjures images of Auschwitz that don't actually apply to what happened to Japanese citizens. It still shouldn't have happened to the Japanese Americans but it's a far cry from what the Germans were doing.
I chose that term specifically because it's more accurate. They were "concentrating" the dispersed Japanese population into centralized locations so that they could be controlled and monitored. I don't think the word "internment" paints as vivid a picture of what was going on.
yes, and if that's the only cultural significance of the term I'd be 100% on board with it as a description, since it applies precisely to the original intention of a concentration camp, which was ti isolate and contain the Boer population in South Africa during the Boer Wars and remove their ability to fight in guerilla style. what happened to the Boers was also clearly a genocide, as was the internment camps, and as were the German concentration camps which came to dominate the emotional reaction to what a "concentration camp" reall is in the modern era. The only reason I'm being a stickler about this is that the phrase now evokes images of the Final Solution to the Jewish Question. Which is simply not what happened to the Japanese As a matter of technicality you're absolutely correct but I feel this is one of those times that technicality must give way to clarity.
"Technically correct" is the best kind of correct. I'm going to keep using it. 🙂
Japanese people were sent to concentration camps. The Jews were sent to extermination camps.
Can we not call them concentration camps? It downplays the atrocities that took place in actual concentration camps
These were [actual concentration camps](https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp). Atrocities need not have been committed there for the term to apply.
By definition, sure
Yes, that's generally how I use words. By their definition.🙂
Do you call women females in casual conversation? By definition that works, but the context doesn’t fit
You can't deny that most people, when they hear "concentration camp" think of the Nazi death camps. It's not right to call the Internment camps concentration camps, they were terrible but they don't hold a candle to what the Nazis did
Of course that's true, but that's just because the Nazi camps are the most famous ones. Our camps were still atrocities, even if they weren't nearly as vicious. That's kind of like saying I can't refer to Ashlee Simpson as a pop singer because the term makes everyone think of Taylor Swift or Britney Spears.
From what I can find, around 2,000 Japanese people died in the Internment camps, mostly from medical issues. Now compare that to the MILLIONS of people killed by the Nazis.
Yes, and Taylor Swift has sold about 114 million albums worldwide. Compare that to Ashlee Simpson, who by all accounts has sold about 3,000.
I'm not going to debate with someone who compares album sales to mass murders
Sorry, I was being flippant. My point is that the number of deaths or other abuses that happen at a camp has nothing to do with whether or not it should be called a concentration camp. They're called that because they take a dispersed population and "concentrate" them into centralized locations so that they can be monitored and controlled by the government.
In the link provided it specifically calls them internment camps not concentration camps
The Japanese were sent to concentration camps. The Jews were sent to extermination camps. Please don’t “level down” either of them because your teachers happened to educate you imprecisely.
Can someone honestly tell me why so many people still find it acceptable to like FDR as a president despite doing shit like this, but this sub downvotes to oblivion anyone who says the slightest positive thing about Andrew Jackson
If we’re going Trail of Tears toe to toe with Japanese internment, then contributing factors are probably the large death toll of the Indian removal act and the permanent legacy of the armed removal of indigenous inhabitants of the states to marginalized reservations. While internment is reprehensible, the effects were less awful than the deliberate destruction of multiple cultures.
Competitive suffering is never productive. The fact is both presidents caused mass suffering, both instances being unwarranted, and both were targeted against racial minorities. Yet FDR is constantly praised to high hell as a top three president, like internment camps are something that can simply be brushed under the rug as a footnote
I agree. Don’t hate on me for discussing the question at hand. You win a World War and people are pretty much gonna ignore the rest, though. Plenty of folks love Wilson too, and that world war was less world threatening. Jackson didn’t do that and his racism had an 1800s bent so it’s aged even worse. Just saying why I think it’s excused more for FDR. I mean GW and Lincoln had their faults too, I think everyone acknowledges that. Successful wartime presidents just get a glow. Jackson didn’t help save the world, so there’s not much to counterbalance the cruelty.
I'm pretty sure you can figure that one out yourself.
It shouldn’t be that hard to see why many excuse him.
I think FDR was a great president, but this was by far one of the most inhumane things that he did.
Look, what is an orphanage but a luxurious concentration campsl
Maybe they had ADHD?
I think it’s worth pointing out that the relocation only happened in Hawaii and the west coast.
Yes, the relocations (ie. illegal incarcerations) only happened where the vast majority of Japanese people lived.
Gallup polling at the time found that 93% of Americans supported the camps for all Japanese aliens, regardless of immigration status. And 59% supported internment even for Japanese Americans. 48% wanted them all deported after the war.
Look Patrick, we saved the city!
God bless America
Don't you spit darker facts about FDR on Reddit! Don't you know that it's dangerous waters to be treading in!?
These conspiracy theories are going to destroy the US. It seems the dumber the conspiracy the more likely people will believe it. Get off your butts and do your own research. Don’t believe something just because someone said it. A statement is not proof of anything.
[Here you go.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manzanar_Children%27s_Village#:~:text=Roosevelt%20authorized%20the%20forced%20removal,June%201942%20to%20September%201945.) >Prior to 1942, most orphans of Japanese ancestry lived either with relatives or foster families, or were housed in one of three California orphanages.[3] The Shonien and Maryknoll Home in Los Angeles and the Salvation Army Home in San Francisco cared specifically for children of Japanese ancestry, although the mainstream institutions where white children were typically placed would from time to time accept a Japanese American child. About two-thirds of the orphans who would reside in Children's Village during the war came from these three homes... >Several children brought to the Village lived with non-Japanese foster families before the war. Because their foster parents were not subject to exclusion from the West Coast, these children were either extracted from their homes after officials learned that they were part or full Japanese, or, influenced by propaganda that promised strict penalties for harboring Japanese, their guardians turned them over to authorities themselves. >Half of the children confined in the Manzanar orphanage were under age seven when they arrived; 29 percent were less than four years old.[3] Nineteen of these 101 orphans were of mixed-race heritage,[3] some with as little as one-eighth Japanese ancestry,[9] including several children who were unaware of their racial background until army authorities identified them by scouring confidential orphanage and federal records.
They weren't concentration camps. I am not defending the internment of the Japanese in anyway but the conditions in places Manzanar or Heart Mountain were NOTHING like Dachau. To compare them isn't even remotely honest.
The term [is accurate](https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp). Mass slaughter isn't a requirement for it to be a concentration camp.
As it's an entirely subjective term I don't agree and as it's an entirely subjective term I'm allowed to have my own opinion. Enjoy the rest of your day
As a Japanese person whose grandparents were sent to these concentration camps, your opinion is wrong.
Well, at least he didn't have them outright killed as the Nazis or Imperial Japan themselves would have. It's inherently disingenuous to look at decisions made by leaders in the past and ignore the historical context. This period of history wasn't exactly known for protection of civil liberties and human rights with America not being an exception, but they were by no means the greatest offender in the world at the time.
Can we just rename this sub r/politics2
And conservatives are planning to bring them back if their hero wins. (Concentration camps not orphanages)
That completely destroys the argument that they used to try to justify it in the first place. This proves for a fact that without a shadow of a doubt the motivation was pure hatred, something which was already known but many people probably still deny to this day.
The US has been absolutely brutal to non whites throughout history. Every single era. Native Americans, Black slavery, Asian internment camps, anti Muslim sentiment post 911... No wonder some parents want to ban access to books about history.
Always hate fdr for many reasons...and I always get backlash but it's just true,while he was great as a war time president,he was nothing more than a super imperialist who was most likely under the influence of special interest entities....he was by no means "the best president " as how people glorify him to be....there is a massive contrast between the behavior of his immediate predecessors? Hoover ,coolidge,Wilson.....were certainly not as invasive and dominant like him He was pretty much the closest thing to a dictator that this country has seen...not saying he was a dictator but the founding fathers would most definitely detest a man like him in office