Butta boom wrote:I repeat, the distortion of history is intolerable. The first reaction to the attack on pearl was to move the entire population on the west coast, to a point east of the coast by 100 miles. That was the first reaction, to protect our population. Thankfully that did not happen. That relocation would have been more catastrophic than what we did to the Japanese.
We were brought unwillingy into a world war by a sneak attack. Think about that. Should we pull one of those on Iran or the Ruskys?
Of course not, but they did. Do you remember the response after 9-11? Most of us wanted to retaliate in some manner. The public had a more responsive and patriotic attitude in those days, and that needs to be considered.
We ferreted out Japenese spy's on the coast, and killed them. Most of the Japanese were recent immigrants, that had families in Japan, the suspicion after such a sneak attack, was justifiable.
Japanese submarines were sighted of our coast, and fake gun emplacements were erected on the west coast to try to deter an attack, because we were unprepared to fend of such an attack.
In the overall historical result of WW2, the change to our status in the world, and the Geo-political outcome of that conflict, the injustice done to our Japanese immigrants was a small part of the war. If the curriculum consisted of two hundred classroom hours, which it should, the Japanese internment should get a good hour. With most of that hour devoted to the Manzanar fishing club whacking the trout in the Owens river, when most of the fisherman in SoCal didn't have the Gas ration stamps to go fishing at all.
Well after reading through this for the last 10 or 15 minutes in a daring attempt to procrastinate and further put off studying for my Dynamics test, I found one fatal flaw in your fiery rhetoric. Your anger over a teacher teaching about the internment camps is, in my opinion, a bit over the top, but hey, to each their own, I won't bash your beliefs if you don't bash mine. However, you seem to be assuming that Ohio isn't teaching his students about the rest of the war, which is a conclusion just not found in the evidence. Isn't it at all possible that this teacher didn't have to go to great lengths to find pictures and stories about American G.I.'s, but did for the interned Japanese, a far smaller population that was largely stripped of cameras and had to record their stories largely through text and orally? You act like he is ONLY teaching about the internment camps, which were, as you said, just one part of a global conflict. Isn't it far more likely that this teacher is teaching his kids the whole story and just needed to reach out for help on this one particular issue, in order to give his students a more fulfilling and enlightening experience? For all we know he is only going to spend 30 minutes on the internment camps, but I can promise you that 30 minutes of personal anecdotes and photographs will leave a much more vivid image of our past than 30 minutes of reading from a text book would. Just my $.02, which, as I'm sure you will remind me of, no one asked for.