Historical Scenario: Internment During Wwii

[add]

You are making zero sense right now.
Not that it should even make a difference, but my own family has close ties to the Native American community.

Do tell

[Nihil Obstat]

Do tell

 

Ah... no thanks. I do not think that is necessary or particularly respectful.

[Jesus_lol]

Also, i find your sympathy for a bunch of militant idiots who shot a cop in the face when he was doing his job, to be slightly disturbing.

[Nihil Obstat]

Also, i find your sympathy for a bunch of militant idiots who shot a cop in the face when he was doing his job, to be slightly disturbing.

 

It was for sure determined that he was actually hit just below the left armpit. I am assuming the bullet must have ricocheted or something, to cause damage to the face.

 

To be entirely fair, nobody really knows who started shooting first. I am not saying the Mohawks were right, but I do not really want to say necessarily that the police were right either. Not without being able to know everything there is to know about it.

[Aloysius]

hmm.. nevermind for now...

Edited January 21, 2013 by Aloysius

[StMichael]

For the record, Italians and Germans were also illegally interned by FDR during WW2.

 

Then again much of the Constitution was ignored by this disaster.

[Winchester]

For the record, Italians and Germans were also illegally interned by FDR during WW2.

 

Then again much of the Constitution was ignored by this disaster.

 

You're an extremist for saying that. Extremist.

[4588686]

You're an extremist for saying that. Extremist.

 

That's actually a pretty mainstream position.  Not to try to hit the breaks on the hyperbole train.  

[Nihil Obstat]

I just kind of want to put a bit of a finer point on this. If it happened then, 70 years ago, could it happen again today, or in ten years, or twenty? Are we prepared to evaluate morally the situations we may be facing even within our lifetimes, and make an honest assessment of our own obligations?

[4588686]

I just kind of want to put a bit of a finer point on this. If it happened then, 70 years ago, could it happen again today, or in ten years, or twenty? Are we prepared to evaluate morally the situations we may be facing even within our lifetimes, and make an honest assessment of our own obligations?

 

The problem I have with these discussions is that in the end it often leads to glorifying violence and in my experience violence is always degrading even when it is justified.  That's one reason I linked the Chris Hedges video.  It's of him debating a black-block anarchist and him explaining why he finds violent resistance to be a bad idea even though he considers the current American political-economic system to be oppressive and immoral.  Hedges has a pretty good grasp on what violence means in a society, even when it's justified, since he was a war corespondent and has reported everywhere from Latin America to besieged Sarajevo to Iraq.  Violence degrades the perpetrators and tends to bolster the worst elements in society.    So this conversation cannot take place in the abstract.  It needs to be contextualized and assessed in terms of what the realistic consequences of armed resistance would have been for Japanese Americans.  

[Winchester]

That's actually a pretty mainstream position.  Not to try to hit the breaks on the hyperbole train.  

 

You're an extremist. FDR was a saint, and his measures were necessary to keep us safe and get us out of the Great Depression.

[Nihil Obstat]

The problem I have with these discussions is that in the end it often leads to glorifying violence and in my experience violence is always degrading even when it is justified.  That's one reason I linked the Chris Hedges video.  It's of him debating a black-block anarchist and him explaining why he finds violent resistance to be a bad idea even though he considers the current American political-economic system to be oppressive and immoral.  Hedges has a pretty good grasp on what violence means in a society, even when it's justified, since he was a war corespondent and has reported everywhere from Latin America to besieged Sarajevo to Iraq.  Violence degrades the perpetrators and tends to bolster the worst elements in society.    So this conversation cannot take place in the abstract.  It needs to be contextualized and assessed in terms of what the realistic consequences of armed resistance would have been for Japanese Americans.  

 

I agree that violence should not be glorified, and I anticipated this coming up, which is why I am trying to be careful about asking whether or not we are ready to evaluate and assess future situations. Equally important is pointing out what violence is unacceptable, and refusing to co-operate in it. A moral refusal to participate in violence may in itself become dangerous at some point in the future.

For instance, perhaps a future military draft... Just came to mind first of all.

[4588686]

You're an extremist. FDR was a saint, and his measures were necessary to keep us safe and get us out of the Great Depression.

 

 

 

I'm glad FDR was willing to eventually fight fascism in Europe and East Asia.  His efforts to get us out of the great depression were commendable (comment about men with guns and wheat farming) albeit insufficient.  I'm glad he implemented some long term policies to give some modicum of protection from the ravages of capitalism to the weaker and poorer elements of society.  His internment policy was terrible.  Most people who know anything about American history probably have a similar view that FDR's administration was a mixture of good and bad (albeit for different reasons I'm know some people believe that constraining capitalism was a terrible thing).  Almost everybody  asides from a few on the right, agree that what was done to Japanese Americans was awful.  It's not a controversial position.  

[4588686]

I agree that violence should not be glorified, and I anticipated this coming up, which is why I am trying to be careful about asking whether or not we are ready to evaluate and assess future situations. Equally important is pointing out what violence is unacceptable, and refusing to co-operate in it. A moral refusal to participate in violence may in itself become dangerous at some point in the future.

For instance, perhaps a future military draft... Just came to mind first of all.

 

Sure.  And I wasn't trying to make an accusation.  I just think that these discussions tend to become highly abstract and I think that a lot gets left out. Economics, for example.  One phenomena I noticed that was getting some attention by scholars looking at the wars in Chechnya was the rise of 'entrepreneurs of violence.'  I think that framed in a sort of closed model form 'do Chechens have a right to violently resist Russian imperialism' I think that the answer is yes.  But that resistance has given birth to a whole social-economic industry of both local Chechen and Russian actors who have economic and political incentives to perpetuate the conflict and it's really helped terrorists and mafias get a stranglehold on the society.  I have heard similar things about Bosnia and the siege of Sarajevo.  Certainly not all or most ordinary people who picked up guns to defend themselves were or are criminals.  I know some people who did just that and I have nothing but admiration for them (particularly the Serbs who could have easily just done nothing and crossed no mans land and been allowed to live safely in Serbia or Srpska).  But I've also heard that the protracted siege of Sarajevo really just empowered the local criminal gangs in Sarajevo.  I still think it was right to resist (and in Bosnia there was no choice since unlike the American or Russian governments genocide was the goal of the Bosnian Serb forces) but I think that outside of cases like Bosnia or Jews in Europe under fascist states violent resistance tends to lead to worse outcomes than other options.  

[Nihil Obstat]

It is almost as if the intention and circumstances of a situation have to be evaluated right along with the moral object. :proud: