1. How are the two accounts similar?
a. Both accounts showed the resilience of the American citizens who lost their material belongings during and after the internment process. Japanese Americans adapted to their new environments and complied with those who forced them into the horrible situation.
2. How are the two accounts different?
a. Takei’s and the government’s accounts would naturally differ, as they were told from opposing sides of the story. Yet, Takei and his family actually witnessed and experienced the events unfold, while the government’s video was merely propaganda trying to portray the plight of the Japanese Americans as a just sacrifice for the war effort, rather than what it truly was—unjustified discrimination against an innocent group of people. According to Takei, Japanese Americans were citizens and had nothing to do with the enemy, but the government still assumed there was disloyalty among the ethnic group. While Takei described internment as a time of hysteria, the government’s propaganda presented it as a calm, orderly process, during which the government—the root cause of the Japanese’s hardship—stepped in and did all it could to help the evacuees. Lastly, the internment camps themselves had conflicting descriptions. On one hand, the government, stressing the opportunity to be …show more content…
Would you consider the Internment camps unconstitutional? Why or why not?
a. The camps were by no means constitutional on the grounds that they violated the rights of Japanese American citizens. Executive Order 9066 stripped these people of their right to be informed of the charges (because there were no justifiable charges) and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Moreover, internment infringed on the right to life, liberty, and property, as Japanese were forced into camps with few belongings, only to return to home to find their belongings, houses, and businesses taken away from them.
4. Were these camps at all similar to the German concentration
a. Both accounts showed the resilience of the American citizens who lost their material belongings during and after the internment process. Japanese Americans adapted to their new environments and complied with those who forced them into the horrible situation.
2. How are the two accounts different?
a. Takei’s and the government’s accounts would naturally differ, as they were told from opposing sides of the story. Yet, Takei and his family actually witnessed and experienced the events unfold, while the government’s video was merely propaganda trying to portray the plight of the Japanese Americans as a just sacrifice for the war effort, rather than what it truly was—unjustified discrimination against an innocent group of people. According to Takei, Japanese Americans were citizens and had nothing to do with the enemy, but the government still assumed there was disloyalty among the ethnic group. While Takei described internment as a time of hysteria, the government’s propaganda presented it as a calm, orderly process, during which the government—the root cause of the Japanese’s hardship—stepped in and did all it could to help the evacuees. Lastly, the internment camps themselves had conflicting descriptions. On one hand, the government, stressing the opportunity to be …show more content…
Would you consider the Internment camps unconstitutional? Why or why not?
a. The camps were by no means constitutional on the grounds that they violated the rights of Japanese American citizens. Executive Order 9066 stripped these people of their right to be informed of the charges (because there were no justifiable charges) and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Moreover, internment infringed on the right to life, liberty, and property, as Japanese were forced into camps with few belongings, only to return to home to find their belongings, houses, and businesses taken away from them.
4. Were these camps at all similar to the German concentration