Talk:Manzanar

Talk Page Archive

Archive 1, 08/02/07 Archive 2, 09/16/07

Manzanar on front page, April 26, 2008

Manzanar on English Wikipedia's front page, April 26, 2008

Since we probably won't see Manzanar on Wikipedia's main/front page again anytime soon, here it is, for perpetuity... -- Gmatsuda (talk) 05:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Photos courtesy of.....

I am deeply offended by the photo captions photo courtesy of... If they won't let us use the photos without such a caption, then we shouldn't use the photo.--345Kai (talk) 04:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but you sure are easily offended. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 05:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I’m surely not offended by it, but I do think an encyclopaedic article just looks better without the credits in the article itself. Contributions to the article can be found in the history of the page and on the image description page. That should be sufficient isn’t it? Apparently even policy. --Van helsing (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, sorry I missed that. A related policy proposal can be found here. --Van helsing (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting comparison

I wonder whether a link to some of the Japanese-run internment camps in the Far East would be of interest to readers of this article? Camps like Stanley Internment Camp and Batu Lintang camp. It is interesting to compare the very different ways the two governments dealt with their civilian internees. The Japanese treated their internees with great brutality. Internees died as a result of lack of food, illness and violence. Death orders were made at the end period of the war, stating that all surviving internees and POWs in the camps were to be murdered. The Japanese ignored international conventions for the treatment of prisoners and regularly denied Red Cross aid. There is a culture of denial or at best collective amnesia in Japan about this shameful period in its history. The treatment of the internees at Manzanar was decidedly humane in contrast. 86.134.50.59 (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is appropriate at all. The Japanese camps were in areas they occupied as a result of war, and held POW's and citizens of nations with which they were at war, not residents of their own nation.

By contrast, the US gave in to its own racial fears, and arbitrarily interned law-abiding legal residents and US citizens whose "fault" was they were descended from nations with which we were at war. That's quite a difference. In retrospect, most historians think that economic competition and fearfulness on the West Coast played a bigger basis in the plan for the internment camps than any realistic assessment of wartime risk by the Japanese American populations. These are not the same case at all.--Parkwells (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Over the years I've met a few people (not Japanese-Americans) who lived in California during WWII. Based on these conversations, it seems to me that the major factor in the creation of thees camps in the US was the fear of invasion, however realistic or unrealistic that fear was. They described as similar to, but much more intense than, the anti-Arab feelings in America after the 9/11 attacks. I'm not saying this justifies what occurred, but it does perhaps provide some explanation. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

When I was growing up, I had neighbors for a while who were Japanese Americans from CA. The woman of the couple had parents who had moved her family from CA to TX to avoid the internment. Her father was a dentist and had a hard time reestablishing his profession. Yes, fear runs wild, especially when linked to other kinds of difference, and in CA the anti-Japanese/Chinese discrimination had been deep. Part of the problem was that the national government, rather than acting with a larger strategic view, gave in to CA's hysteria, and authorized carting off a huge batch of people, non-citizens and citizens alike, for internment. The national government's failure is one reason why a bill for compensation finally passed.--Parkwells (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There were some who correctly labeled what was happening at the time. Japanese Americans did challenge the internment. Associate Justice Frank Murphy introduced the word "racism" into the lexicon of U.S. Supreme Court opinions in Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), in which he charged that by upholding the forced relocation of Japanese-Americans during World War II, the Court was sinking into "the ugly abyss of racism." This was the first time that the word "racism" found its way into the lexicon of words used in Supreme Court opinion.--Parkwells (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It also turned out (I'm reading from cases in Wikipedia), that later it was found that the government suppressed evidence in the Supreme Court case that said the military did not think a real emergency existed. "Korematsu v. US" was overturned. Judge Patel concluded:

"Korematsu remains on the pages of our legal and political history. As a legal precedent it is now recognized as having very limited application. As historical precedent it stands as a constant caution that in times of war or declared military necessity our institutions must be vigilant in protecting constitutional guarantees. It stands as a caution that in times of distress the shield of military necessity and national security must not be used to protect governmental actions from close scrutiny and accountability. It stands as a caution that in times of international hostility and antagonisms our institutions, legislative, executive and judicial, must be prepared to exercise their authority to protect all citizens from the petty fears and prejudices that are so easily aroused."--Parkwells (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually,tl the ruling in the case was not overturned. A lower court cannot overturn a decision of the US Supreme Court. Rather, the ruling was vacated. Technically, the rulings in the 1944 cases are still the law of the land. However, based on the falsified, altered and omitted evidence that the government used in 1944, the ruling in the 1984 cases completely undermines the evidence upon which the 1944 cases were based on. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, this kind of moral reductionism is the equivalent of kid's on the playground who claim "Billy did it first!" or "Jane stole more cookies than I did!" when caught by the schoolteacher. It wasn't a good excuse when we were schoolchildren, and its not an especially great one now. It also presumes that pointing out one's own flaws means an instant support of the opposing side; a kind of extrapolated "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". This too is flawed, and reduces everything into a "us vs them" mentality. The world, despite how much people want to say otherwise, is a morally complicated place, with a great amount of gray. The fact that this perturbs people who want their decisions quick and simplistic is not something Wikipedia should cater to. SiberioS (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not edit others statements...

I came back today to find my statement not only erased, but merged with Parkwell's and signed with my user ID. I presume, looking at the history, that the person who did this was Parkwells. I presume it was intentional because you modified the dates and times on my signature to fit it. For obvious reasons, this sort of thing is forbidden on WP. Don't try and modify the talk page and other peoples statements.(Edited later after logging in) SiberioS (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't presume anything. I did not alter your statement. I don't even know how to alter the dates and times of signatures. Someone else apparently did. A third person interposed another statement between ours.--Parkwells (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be other vandalism going on, as the level of protection was raised on the article.--Parkwells (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional photos from HABS and NPS are available

I just added a link to the 1984 NRHP Inventory/Nomination document that supported NRHP and NHL designation of the site, with accompanying 8 photos (now footnote 101 or so in the article). It includes one dramatic HABS pic of the guardpost, and 7 photos by NPS employee E. N. Thompson taken in February 1984. All of these are public domain. Thompson's photos can be obtained individually as high quality JPG files by searching on Manzanar here in the National Register search site. There are also many other HABS photos available, obtainable by searching here in the HABS search screen, which are also all in the public domain.

The article is illustrated already, but perhaps some of these photos could be rotated in, or could be added to a Commons gallery on Manzanar that could be linked to the article. I leave it to editors more involved with this article, however. Hope this helps! doncram (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I tidyed up the citation you added and moved the PDF citation for the photos to an external link (more appropriate there) until I find time to find the jpegs of those photos and put them in the Commons. Thanks for fixing the infobox too! -- Gmatsuda (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Notable prisoners

In the course of identifying notable Japanese American internees at other war relocation camps, I found a few Manzanar internees with wikipedia articles that weren't mentioned in this article's Notable prisoners section. In case anyone thinks it's appropriate to integrate these persons into that section, I am listing them here for reference: Koji Ariyoshi, Paul Bannai, Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston (mentioned in another section of the article), Gordon H. Sato, Larry Shinoda, Iwao Takamoto, Takuji Yamashita, Wendy Yoshimura, and possibly Tommy Kono. This is an incomplete list. — Myasuda (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but keep in mind that these camp articles are about the camp, not specifically about those who were imprisoned there. Yes, the prisoners made and lived that history, but the focus of the article, after all, is the camp. As such, I actuallly removed Koji Ariyoshi and Iwao Takamoto in favor of those included in the Manzanar article because they are, I believe, more important to the history of Manzanar and of the Japanese American Internment. Perhaps the same focus would be best for the other camp articles as well. They should not become a list of all "notable" former prisoners. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW: Eventually, the notable prisoners sections in the other camp articles will need to be more thoroughly researched with more detail added. Then, assuming those sections grow significantly, they will likely need to be pruned a bit, as we had to do with this article. :-) -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Right now each notable prisoner is profiled. For those with articles of their own it's sufficient to list them, or at most add a short description of the event surrounding their internment. Some of the folks already in the artilce might be spun off with articles of their own. Sue Kunitomi Embrey, for example, may be notable enough for an article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)