Essay Sample on American Japanese Internment Camps

Introduction

Japanese internment camps developed at the period of World War 2via executive order 9066 issued by President Franklin. For the period 1942 to 1945, it was the policy that persons of Japanese were supposed to be laid to rest in the isolated camps. Enacted in response to the Pearl Harbor together with ensuing war, it is worth noting that Japanese internment camps remain to be nowadays perceived to be one of the most terrible American's violations of the civil rights in a 20th century (Sung and et al, 53).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Concerning how Japanese internment camps started and regarding what led to the executive order 9066, it is worth to note that on 19th February 1942, immediately following the bombing of Pearl Harbor by the forces of Japan, President Franklin D. Roosevelt having the intention of hindering the espionage regarding American shores signed the executive order. In California, Washington, as well as Oregon Military zones, were formed having a large population of the Japanese Americans upon which the executive orders of Roosevelt directed Americans of Japanese ancestry to be relocated. About 117,000 people most of them being Americans were adversely affected by the executive order 9066 (Nagata, Donna and Cheng 266).

Followed this, Canada as well relocated 21000 residents of Japan from the west coast. Mexico ratified its version, and ultimately 2,264 more descent of Japan removed from Brazil, Chile, Peru as well as Argentina to the U.S. It is imperative to note that weeks before the executive order Navy took away Japanese descent citizens from the Terminal Island neighboring port of Los Angeles. On 7th December 1941, just following the Pearl Harbor bombing, FBI brought together about 1,291 community of Japanese together with religious leaders thereby arresting them in the absence of evidence as well as having their assets frozen. In January those who captured were taken to facilities in New Mexico, North Dakota, as well as Montana and majority of them, were not able to inform their families besides a number of them stayed for the duration of the war. At the same time, the FBI sought after the private homes of the residents of Japanese situated on the West Coast thereby get hold of items well-thought-out to be contraband. It is imperative to note that a third of the population of Hawaii remained to be descendants of Japanese. Hence in panic, some of the legislators called for mass incarnation. There was impoundment of the fishing boats owned by Japanese. Some of the residents of Japan got arrested while about 1,500 people representing one percent of the population of Japanese in Hawaii were driven to the U.S. mainland camps (Nagata, Donna and Cheng 278).

John Dewitt, the leader of the western defense command, undertakes that the civilian population required to be taken control in an effort of preventing reoccurrence of the Pearl Harbor. By way of arguing this, DeWitt produced a report that was full of recognized falsehoods including the illustrations of sabotage that later came to be known as the outcome of cattle destructive power lines. He proposed the creation of the military zones together with Japanese detainment to war secretary. In February 1942 at the congressional hearing, most of the testimonies taking into account those of Earl Warren the State Attorney General and Culbert California governor undertook that there was need of removing all Japanese (Matsumoto, 169).

Following much organizational chaos, it is worth to note that about 15000 Japanese Americans out of their own will moved away from areas prohibited. Inland citizens were said not to be keen regarding the residents of Japanese thus were met with resistance of racist. It is during this period that ten governors articulated opposition, under the fear that Japanese may decline to leave hence demanded that they are locked up in case the stated were to accept them by force. In March 1942 private organization named War Relocation Authority was established to administer the plan. The organization was led by Milton S. Eisenhower who shortly in June 1942 resigned citing incarceration of the innocent citizens (Nagata, Donna and Cheng 278).

Matsumoto (160), notes that on 24th March evacuations was directed by Army began. There was only six days' notice for the people to have their belongings disposed of except just what they could carry. Anybody considered to be at least 1/16th Japanese was exiled even children under 10 totaling 17000, and several thousands of the handicapped and elderly were too evacuated. Japanese Americans were required to report to the center near their homes upon which they were then transported to the relocation center, live there for some months before transferring to permanent residence of wartime. It is imperative to note that the centers were situated in remote areas mainly reconfigured racetracks as well as fairgrounds that featured buildings that were destined for human habitation a case in point being cow sheds or horse stalls converted for that purpose. About 3000 people were held in livestock pavilion in Portland, Oregon under the exposition facilities of Pacific International livestock. These facilities were prevalent of the substandard sanitation and Food shortages.

Detainees in the assembly centers were offered work that ranged from doctors, teachers, mechanics, and laborers; however, the policy was that they ought not to be paid more than Private Army. Most of the assembly centers entailed being sites of the camouflage net factories that provided work. At the same time, there were opportunities for the farm work, and because of the labor shortage, internees were sent to carry out the seasonal farm work in various states. Still, others were as well allowed to leave and attend college (Matsumoto, 169).

There were ten permanent housing camps referred to as Relocation Centers and occasionally violence took place in them. A senior man and other men tried to escape and were shot to death. On 4th August 1942, there was a riot in Santa Anita facility caused by the anger concerning overcrowding and insufficient rations. At Manzanar, California tensions gave rise to the beating of Japanese American citizens, and police killed one person following the riot and police tear-gassed crowds. Concerning Topaz relocation center a man was shot to death by the military police for nearing the perimeter and in two months later, the couple was as well, shot for the same reason. In 1943, there was a broke out of the riot at Tule Lake because of the accidental death, dispersion of the tear gas, as well as the declaration of the martial law up to the time agreements, were grasped (Matsumoto,160).

Conclusion

Finally in 1945 as noted by Nagata, Donna and Cheng (278) internment camps came to an end as a result of the decision made by the Supreme Court. In the case Endo V. United States, it was ruled that the War Relocation Authority lacks the authority of subjecting citizens concededly being loyal to the authority's leave procedure. After two years a decision was made by the Supreme Court but gave Roosevelt an opportunity to commence camp closure before the announcement. A day after the announcement made by Roosevelt, the Supreme Court made its decision apparent. It is in March 1946 that the latest Japanese internment camp was closed. "After Camp" remains a record of unique time, situation as well as place. The internment of Japanese Americans remained being an acknowledgement of injustice.

Work Cited

Matsumoto, Valerie. "Reflections on oral history: Research in a Japanese American community." Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork. Routledge, 2018. 160-169.

Nagata, Donna K., and Wendy JY Cheng. "Intergenerational Communication of RaceRelated Trauma by Japanese American Former Internees." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 73.3 (2003): 266-278.

Sung, Yoo Kyung, and Junko Sakoi. "Sixth Graders' Inquiry into the World War II Japanese Internment Camps." Using Nonfiction for Civic Engagement in Classrooms: Critical Approaches (2018): 53.