George Takei on his childhood internment camp experience

That’s what I was trying to get at when I made my NSA comment.

I’m not coming at this from the same angle as you. I’m saying that what is successful at one time is what is right for that situation, yet it may not be either successful or right at another time.

It’s always the irony of people trying to claim a single set of moral standards should be applied to everyone else at all times, when we don’t even have the benefit of history to say if our own standards will survive this century. There are a lot of big assumptions here about us having arrived at the end of history; I think that they’re more than a little premature.

Maybe he could have dealt with the situation differently. Maybe he actually couldn’t. Maybe he was wrong, yet he was the one for whom the buck stopped. I think that it’s presumptuous for us to second guess him making that decision in that way at the time. What if he’d got that wrong?

We all know what the Holocaust (capital H, if you’d really like to put it in context) was. The fact that there were two Holocaust denying posts in the old forum has nothing to do with my post. You’re trying to tar me with that brush when I haven’t even gone there.

1 Like

It’s pretty clear cut wrong taking innocent people from their homes and taking everything away from them because of the paranoia that it’s possible that some could be spys based on their ethnicity from where I stand. I’m fairly certain there were plenty of none ethnic Japanese Americans that helped the axis and actually betrayed their country. Rounding up a whole group was a terrible moment in history. It was wrong. Plain and simple. Case close.

You begin your first sentence with “it’s pretty clear cut” and then end it with “from where I stand”. You’re conflating the latter with the former.

That’s your opinion, and it’s a legitimate opinion (pretty close to my own opinion on the issue). But that doesn’t mean that other opinions or arguments are therefore illegitimate, and that it’s justified to censor them or conflate them with Holocaust deniers (hansioux) or engage in personal attacks against those who hold them (you). My default position is support for freedom of speech.

I think you are mixing up what works with what’s right.

Would America have lost the war if FDR also rounded up every single Italian/German American families? Would American have lost the war if FDR also only rounded up questionable Japanese American families? Usually what if questions are pointless in historical discussions, but I think if FDR was equally crude in detaining Italian/German Americans, he would have a tough time winning the war, while not detaining all Japanese wouldn’t have made a difference.

Executive Order 9066 seems to be more about convenience more than anything. FDR decided to do it because there were less Japanese families and it wouldn’t have mattered. Detaining citizens of an entire ethnicity is just wrong anyway, doing so out of convenience was just that much more pathetic.

Again, you can say you understand why FDR chose to do it with the mindset of his time. It’s however not the same thing as saying it is ok to do so everytime there’s a war. As Andrew pointed out, people hope to learn from history, and not justify repeating the wrongs of history just because the US happened to be on the winning side.

1 Like

Freedom of speech does not protect anyone from others reacting badly to what you say. Justifying the internment of Japanese Americans, I’m certain would draw a pretty bad reaction from 99.99% of people. It was wrong. I can’t see how you can legitimately defend it without sounding like a complete asshole. Sure you’re allowed to justify it in your opinion, but it’s vile and disgusting.

[quote=“Andrew0409, post:27, topic:156271, full:true”]
Freedom of speech does not protect anyone from others reacting badly to what you say.[/quote] No, but good manners do. Personal insults and swear words don’t add anything to the debate. Calling Guy an asshole, vile, disgusting, etc. doesn’t support your argument…in fact it undermines it. My view is close to yours on the issue of internment, but you lose the moral high ground when you engage in ad hominem attacks and try to shut down debate.

1 Like

I didn’t call guy an ass. I said anyone who defends it is an ass. It just happens guy justifies it. And they have every right to censor it because it’s offensive. Try going to an internment museum and saying this.

You’re seriously considering censoring Guy for taking a long historical view on the issue of internment? By all means, refute this view (which you have), but his presentation of this perspective shouldn’t be anywhere near your red line.

1 Like

That’s where you’re absolutely wrong. Offensive speech has the full protection of the First Amendment. Or are you against the Constitution? When we start deciding what speech is or isn’t “offensive” and censoring it on that basis, we no longer have free speech.

1 Like

I would think anyone with any moral compass would see trying to justify this horrible event which guy says directly was not a horrible event would consider censoring it. It’s terribly offensive.

Yes protection from the government!! Not protection from censorship from a forum. This forum has rules we all must obey by.

I don’t know what would or wouldn’t have happened. No one here is privvy to whatever FDR knew or thought he knew or the way that he judged public sentiment. He probably erred with convenience because there would be far less blow back that way if wrong, but I actually don’t know what he was thinking.

The point to learn from history is that we have not arrived at the end of history and solved these kinds of issues. Here’s an example from history. 1815, the end of the craziest war in Europe up until that time. 1918, the end of the War to End All Wars; no really, it is the end of all wars. Oops, 1945, no really guys, it’s over this time, we’ve figured this stuff out; definitely not going to have big wars with enemies and potential spies and stuff ever again; definitely not; we can all hold hands now.

We can only have such a world view precisely because we live in our current, rarefied atmosphere. It’s all going to be washed away this century though.

I’m not arguing whether it’s offensive or not, I’m arguing in favor of free speech. Have you ever read the Constitution? It’s pretty good reading…I highly recommend it.

Have you read the constitution? Freedom of speech protects you from the government going after you. It does not guarantee freedom of speech on a forum from the people running it.

Andrew, I’ve actually complied with hansioux’s request that you and I not insult each other. Come on. Don’t try to go about it in an underhanded way.

It’s a privately owned and run forum, so the administrators can set any rules they want. But for an American moderator like hansioux, I’d think the Constitution would provide the perfect guideline for what speech is acceptable on the forum.

Then why can’t I insult someone? I thought you were in favor for freedom of speech?

Insult all you like. I didn’t tell you not to insult anyone, I just said that it doesn’t help your argument any. It is, however, illegal in Taiwan…not that I believe it’s a good law.

1 Like