Internment: Rethinking or Rewriting History?

[pzarquon]

Today's Star-Bulletinfeatured a column by Michelle Malkin, a conservative columnist who's no stranger to controversy and who's at the heart of a big firestorm right now with the release of her new book, "In Defense of Internment." And if you haven't heard about it yet, yes, she's saying exactly what it sounds like she's saying.

The issue is especially hot locally, both for the interment experience of our citizens as well as the presence in town of the JACL for its 75th annual conference.

Editorial Page Editor Mary Poole wrote a special introduction to Malkin's piece, as well as an immediate response from JACL member David Forman (who was given the chance to review Malkin's column prior to publication - "a departure from normal Star-Bulletin practice").

Also interestingly, she notes that: "Malkin relied heavily on original research by Star-Bulletin writer Burl Burlingame, both from his book "Advance Force: Pearl Harbor" and a series of articles by Burlingame printed in the Star-Bulletin in 1986 about an Imperial Navy aviator who crashed on Niihau on Dec. 7, 1941. Given the same facts, Malkin came to different conclusions than Burlingame."

Oddly enough, neither of these pieces (or Poole's note) appear to be available online. Anyone know why?

Here's a long excerpt of the Niihau chapter:

The Haradas were neither radical nationalists nor professional spies. They were ordinary Japanese-Americans who betrayed America by putting their ethnic roots first. How many other Japanese-Americans—especially on the vulnerable West Coast—might be swayed by enemy appeals such as Nishikaichi’s? How many more might be torn between allegiance for their country of birth and kinship with Imperial invaders?

Malkin's views are pretty well documented, but I'd love to be able to read and cite some articulate, non-knee jerk responses to what, on the surface, seems to me a simply preposterous position. Being a Japanese American whose family was put in an internment camp (and whose father was born in one), I can hardly be impartial.

[Glen Miyashiro]

Re: Internment: Rethinking or Rewriting History?

I would guess that they're not available on the Star-Bulletin's web site because of copyright reasons. Malkin's piece is probably syndicated and the S-B doesn't have the right to reproduce it in electronic format. For the same reason, AP wire stories don't make it to the web edition of the paper, either. And it probably wouldn't make sense to publish Poole's commentary without Malkin's piece.

[Linkmeister]

Re: Internment: Rethinking or Rewriting History?

I wrote a little about this the other day. My post includes a link to a law professor who rebuts all of Malkin's claims. The link takes you to his post linking to his rebuttal, but if you follow it, page upward because the discussion continues.

[Kilinahe]

Re: Internment: Rethinking or Rewriting History?

She's a stupid fascist gorgon.

That's about as non-knee jerk as I can be.

I think even trying to reasonably discuss anything she has to say is giving her way more attention than she deserves.

[Glen Miyashiro]

Re: Internment: Rethinking or Rewriting History?

I'm with Kilinahe. Michelle Malkin is like a Filipino Ann Coulter.

[pzarquon]

Re: Internment: Rethinking or Rewriting History?

Wow, thanks for the Eric Muller pointer. He and Greg Robinson have been busy. That was good reading. Solid responses.

The only thing I knew about the MAGIC intercepts was the acronym. Muller's criticisms have given me a whole new world of stuff to mull over.

Even more interestingly, Malkin is actively responding to the criticisms, and there's a conversation of sorts going on. That a "real" author with a "real" book is listening to voices on the web is remarkable (though, admittedly, Muller and Robinson are hardly lightweights offline). I mean, I still think Malkin's off her rocker, but as an experiment in political discourse, the debate in general is pretty interesting.

One other thing this exercise has proven is that the traditional "latest on top" blog format isn't always the best way to present a multi-part argument or essay. I sure wish Muller would concatenate everything on a separate page, in the right order.

As an aside, I liked the pointer to Malkin's "Errata" page for her book, on which one of the items is, "Oahu is the third-largest Hawaiian island, not the largest." Yes, the largest one is probably the one called the Big Island.

[pzarquon]

Re: Internment: Rethinking or Rewriting History?

Burl Burlingame, whose research was cited heavily in Malkin's book, reports on his mixed feelings and reproduces his level-headed e-mail response to the Star-Bulletin newsroom when a coworker expressed outrage that Malkin's column was published in its pages.

Apparently, "enlightened thinkers" refuse to allow the opinions of others to be heard? Even in a forum that makes an attempt to be openminded and evenhanded, such as the OpEd page? Should we only quote those we personally agree with? What happened to being objective journalists and having basic standards of fairness? [...] Let me be clear. Although Michelle based much of her "book" (it's actually more of a padded essay) on my original research and upon my book "Advance Force," I personally think relocation and internment was perhaps inevitable given the tenor of the time, but was still wrong and unjustified. No, it goes beyond wrong. It was stupid and counterproductive and continues to embarrass to this day.

[Linkmeister]

Re: Internment: Rethinking or Rewriting History?

It strikes me that no one in this conversation (including me) has yet addressed the point she's subtly making (although she says otherwise somewhere...see Muller's point/counterpoint), which is that maybe American Arabs and Muslims should be interned right now.

[pzarquon]

Re: Internment: Rethinking or Rewriting History?

I would guess that they're not available on the Star-Bulletin's web site because of copyright reasons. Malkin's piece is probably syndicated and the S-B doesn't have the right to reproduce it in electronic format... And it probably wouldn't make sense to publish Poole's commentary without Malkin's piece.

Curiouser and curiouser... both the Malkin piece and David Forman's response have been added to the Star-Bulletin, slipped "back" into the online editorial section for August 9, and mentioned and linked in today's paper. They're also specifically asking for feedback, presumably to serve as the core of their Sunday Insight section.

Also, Burl Burlingame has posted a second entry related to Malkin's book, perhaps discovering for the first time what it's like to be hyperlinked throughout the blogosphere. His update is a letter he sent directly to Malkin:

It's also important to remember not just the facts, but the mindset of the period. Most civilian deaths occurred during the last year of the war. This was true not just in Germany and Japan, but in England, which was being pounded by Nazi V-1 and V-2 terror weapons. Also, for the public, the horrors of the war were NEW information in the summer of 1945 ?- the Bataan Death March, the horrific treatment of Allied prisoners, the German death camps, the numbing slaughter suffered seizing Berlin. No one was in any mood to assuage armchair critics 60 years in the future.

[scrivener]

Re: Internment: Rethinking or Rewriting History?

She's a stupid fascist gorgon.

I must respectfully disagree. While I don't know if I've ever agreed with Michelle Malkin on anything, I don't think she's stupid. Not by a longshot. On the contrary, I've always been kinda conflicted by the fact that such an intelligent, skilled writer can be so far off on so very many things. The conflict fascinates me (I have a link to her online journal on my own online journal's front page), because I think she's probably far more intelligent than I am and I just don't get how she comes to some of her conclusions.

That covers "stupid." As for "fascist," I'll admit that I've never really understood what that word means, so I'll give you that one.

But "gorgon?" Uh-uh. No way. Her physical gifts are another reason I'm so conflicted. Sorry.

[scrivener]

Re: Internment: Rethinking or Rewriting History?

It strikes me that no one in this conversation (including me) has yet addressed the point she's subtly making (although she says otherwise somewhere...see Muller's point/counterpoint), which is that maybe American Arabs and Muslims should be interned right now.

Whew. She has been gently suggesting something like that for a long, long time. Her main argument (and I'll confess that I haven't read anything mentioned here yet, but I have been reading her column and her online journal for quite a while, so I probably know the gist of what she says) has been that we make it far, far, far too easy for people with animosity toward our country to get into our country. If safety is our primary concern, she says, we HAVE to make it more difficult. I disagree wholeheartedly, of course, but then I'm also willing to say that I'm willing to risk another 9/11 or worse in exchange for doors flung even wider for anyone who wants to come here and pursue The Dream.

If I felt as strongly as she does about safety, I might agree with her. If she felt as strongly as I do about human liberty and America's being the best place to pursue it, she might agree with me.

[Kilinahe]

Re: Internment: Rethinking or Rewriting History?

But "gorgon?" Uh-uh. No way. Her physical gifts are another reason I'm so conflicted. Sorry.

I was referring more to her capacity for evil than her looks when I used the word "gorgon". I have no idea what she looks like.

[scrivener]

Re: Internment: Rethinking or Rewriting History?

I was referring more to her capacity for evil than her looks when I used the word "gorgon". I have no idea what she looks like.

Hm. I certainly can't disagree with that, 'though I don't think evil is her intention. A lot of evil has been done with the best of intentions.

[pzarquon]

Re: Internment: Rethinking or Rewriting History?

As noted above, the Star-Bulletin printed a full spread of reaction to the Malkin piece in today's edition. It leads off with a "Frequently Asked Questions" by Burl Burlingame, and features dozens of letters, some incredulous, some supporting Malkin, and most quite thoughtful. The signatories to the letters are sometimes just as interesting as the letters themselves.

[Glen Miyashiro]

Re: Internment: Rethinking or Rewriting History?

As noted above, the Star-Bulletin printed a full spread of reaction to the Malkin piece in today's edition. It leads off with a "Frequently Asked Questions" by Burl Burlingame, and features dozens of letters, some incredulous, some supporting Malkin, and most quite thoughtful. The signatories to the letters are sometimes just as interesting as the letters themselves.

As you can see from the letters, there are splits in the Hawai'i Japanese American community over this question. But most Hawai'i Japanese Americans weren't interned, so we don't have much firsthand experience with this issue. What would be more interesting would be to see responses to the same issues from the California Japanese American community, where every family was affected.

One thing about the WW2 AJA internment camps that I find really interesting was the Loyalty Questionnaire that interned AJAs were required to complete in 1943, with the infamous two questions:

No. 27. Are you willing to serve in the Armed forces of the United States on combat duty wherever ordered?

No. 28. Will you swear unqualified allegiance to the United States of America and faithfully defend the United States from any or all attack by foreign of domestic forces, and forswear any form of allegiance or obedience to the Japanese emperor, to any other foreign government, power or organization?

Considering the circumstances, I was amazed to learn how many internees answered "yes-yes" to these questions. Boy, if it were me I'm not sure I would have been so quick to profess loyalty to a country that had unlawfully jailed me and my family because of where we came from.