Japanese-American Inequivalent

Between 1942 and 1946, more than 110,000 Japanese Americans were forcibly relocated to concentration camps with the justification of military necessity after the Japanese launched the devastating attack on pearl harbor in 1941. However, it is of debate to which extent was the degree posed by Japanese-American equivalent to the treatment of Internment they received from the US government. Orthodox Historians who regard the internment decision to be wrong, suggests that the degree of threat posed by Japanese-American were completely inequivalent to the treatment they received as it was unconstitutional since the military justification were counterfeit from the start without any concrete evidence and was merely resulted of racism and war hysteria …show more content…
Revionists historians argues that the degree of threat posed was equivalent as war between America and Japan is inevitable when considering America’s “long-standing prejudice towards the Japanese” that had fueled up their anger to take revenge. This is exemplified through considering the breakdown of Anglo-Japanese Alliance in 1921 with the eventual formation of Anglo-US security cooperation in Asia and the Pacific that had risen from colonial perception of Japanese espionage, and the invasion of Manchuria that resulted from Japan outrage at the western interference in Japanese affairs. This is significant as it implies that the ensuing mutant distrust that developed over three decades prior to 1941 had built up the fear that Japanese intelligence agencies had planned for war through vigorous espionage efforts, giving value to the argument that the threat posed by Japanese-Americans was equivalent to their treatment since even Japanese-Americans are not necessarily Japanese, but since it is impossible to determine loyalty of a person, the internment camp therefore acts as a safety precaution as President Roosevelt have said success in war “requires every possible protection against espionage and sabotage." especially when there are …show more content…
However, when considering the lack of historical evidence and the lack of immediate action taken after the Pearl Harbor attack, the “threat” do seem to be exaggerated. Therefore, the interpretation by post revisionists historians that argues the threat posed by Japanese-Americans to be somewhat equivalent seems to be the most appropriate as it would be too superficial to have strong tendency on the interpretations that suggests the threat to be completely equivalent or inequivalent as the nature of two interpretations are different in the way that the revisionists perspective is based on unquantifiable components like racism and