The Japanese "Doho"
Othmer
the Emperor. The doho, or compatriots are Japanese nationals and their
descendants living in other countries. And by tradition and expectation,
even Japanese that are naturalized or native citizens of other countries
still owe first allegiance to Japan and the Emperor. This tradition was
particularly strong in the years preceding World War II. The presence of
doho proved to be a thorny security problem for countries along the Pacific
Rim, including all of Asia, but also posed a security threat to the U.S.,
Canada and Latin America. The consequences of the doho tradition included
the relocation of U.S. citizens of Japanese descent, many of whom were minor
children and also the internment of Japanese enemy nationals and their
minor children.
The problem of divided loyalties is an old one. America's revolutionaries
had to cope with the Tories, loyal to George III. Even today, there are
suspicions held and charges leveled that Eastern Establishment elites in
the United States are Anglophiles favoring the interests of England over
those of the U.S. The questions of the loyalties of Japan's Doho are
similar in some ways to problems posed by other expatriate populations.
Do Chinese living in Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, Singapore, Amsterdam, New York,
San Francisco and Vancouver pose threats to the security and sovereignty of
the nations where these cities are found? Do Indians living in Fiji or
Silicon Valley threaten Fiji and the United States? Do Mexicans living in
Brownsville, Dallas, San Antonio, Phoenix, San Francisco, San Jose, San
Diego and Los Angeles pose a threat to the U.S.? Do Japanese living in
Jakarta threaten Indonesia? How about Japanese nationals and
Japanese-Americans living in Los Angeles and Honolulu? The existence of a
pro-Israel, Zionist-leaning lobby within the United States is widely
acknowledged. A continuous debate rages in U.S. political circles over U.S.
foreign policy vis-a-vis Israel and the Middle East. The controversial
on-going case of Jonathan Pollard, a U.S. Navy employee convicted of spying
for Israel brings focus to this issue.
While it has been hotly debated and routinely denied by Japanese-Americans,
doho performed espionage and subversive duties for Japan on U.S. soil.
Japanese men returned to Japan to serve the Emperor. Thousands of
Japanese-American men renounced their loyalty to the United States and
demanded repatriation to Japan during World War II. Black Dragons disrupted
U.S. internment camps during World War II. Declassification of U.S.
security files including top secret intercepts of Japan's Purple Code and
other ciphers has confirmed and added to the body of information on the
Japanese doho.
References:
Gentlemen of Japan: A Study in Rapist Diplomacy, Violet Sweet Haven,
Ziff-Davis, Chicago, 1944.
American and Japanese Relocation in World War II; Fact, Fiction & Fallacy,
Lillian Baker, Webb Research Group, Medford, 1990.
Shadows Dancing: Japanese Espionage Against the West, 1939-1945, Tony
Matthews, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1994.
Jim Carew
Mike Fester
: Doho by tradition and expectation, owe their first allegiance to Japan and
: the Emperor. The doho, or compatriots are Japanese nationals and their
: descendants living in other countries. And by tradition and expectation,
This is quite in error.
Assuming this has anything to do with WWII, prior to 1868, there was no
such thing as Japanese living overseas. Japanese were NOT allowed to leave
the home islands for the 250 year Tokugawa rule, and should they have left,
either deliberately or by accident, they were not allowed back home, under
pain of death. (Not to mention, during that time, the first allegience was
to the bakufu itself, and the Emperor was deliberately secluded.)
After the Meiji Restoration, there were the beginnings of a modern legal
system, with a modern concept of citizenship. Japan adopted many of its
citizenship laws from Europe, notably France and Germany.
Unlike those two, however, Japan was one of the FIRST to not AUTOMATICALLY
assign its own citizenship to children of emigres, and one of the first
to allow explicit renunciation of Japanese citizenship. Also, it was not
until ~1986 that Japan acknowledged the right of children to a Japanese
mother and non-Japanese father to be Japanese citizens.
In addition, Mr Carew, the word "douhou" means, simply, 'compatriot' or
'kin'. The word is used in the term "kaigai no douhou" which would be
almost identical to the American term "expatriot", and "douhouai" which
would correspond to the English "brotherly love".
Finally, NO Japanese owes allegience to the Emperor; he is NOT part of the
government, nor has he been since 1945, nor prior to 1868, for centuries.
The word does not mean what you claim it means. The repitition of a lie does
NOT increase its validity.
Mike (remove "@eyrie.org" to reply)
Wjho...@aol.com
mfe...@iisc.com@eyrie.org (Mike Fester) writes:
>After the Meiji Restoration, there were the beginnings of
>a modern legal system, [snip] Japan was one of the FIRST
>to not AUTOMATICALLY assign its own citizenship to children
>of emigres, and one of the first to allow explicit renunciation
>of Japanese citizenship.
But the Mejii restoration began in 1868 and Japan didn't stop AUTOMATICALLY
assigning its own citizenship to the children born oversees to Japanese
nationals until 56 years after that, in 1924, when the Imperial Diet passed a
law which called for overseas Japanese parents to register their children with
Japanese consulates within two weeks of birth for the child to become a
Japanese citizen.
HOWEVER, under that Japanese law the Japanese citizenship status of all such
children born in the U.S. PRIO to 1924 continued in effect. Thus Nisei who
were 17 and older at the time of Pearl Harbor were Japanese citizens (dual
citizens) unless they had specifically renounced their Japanese citizenship
BEFORE they were 17 years of age. If they had not done so by then, Japan
denied them the right to do so UNTIL they reached their 37th birthday.
Between the ages of 17 and 37 such dual citizens were subject, even if living
in the U.S., to serving in the Japanese Imperial Army or Navy when called upon
to do so.
Records in Hawaii show that by 1933 only 8 percent of Nisei born before 1924
had renounced their Japanese citizenship and that 40 percent of those born
after 1924 had been registered by their Japanese parents so that they could
acquire Japanese citizenship. (Source: "Hawaii Under the Rising Sun," by Dr.
John J. Stephan, PhD in Japanese history, Univ. of London, School of Oriental
and African Studies.)
>Also, it was not until ~1986 that Japan acknowledged the
>right of children to a Japanese mother and non-Japanese father
>to be Japanese citizens.
Which points up the long-standing "racism" inherent in the Japanese society.
>The word (doho) does not mean what you claim it means.
>The repitition of a lie does NOT increase its validity.
You use the term "lie" quite freely. According to Stephan, "the overseas
"doho" in areas under Japanese occupation were not only cooperative but useful
because of their knowledge of local conditions. Japanese forces in the
Phillipines received a tempestuous welcome from resident compatriots in Davao
on Mindanao on December 20, 1941 and the Macassar Japanease assisted Imperial
Navy units occupying the Celebes in February 1942..."
Any legitimate reason to think that many of the U.S. West Coast "doho" might
have acted any differently if given a convenient opportunity, particularly in
view of the information on espionage and potential sabotage gained from the
MAGIC intercepts?
W.J.Hopwood
Mike Fester
: In article <7doadm$15i8$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
: mfe...@iisc.com@eyrie.org (Mike Fester) writes:
: But the Mejii restoration began in 1868 and Japan didn't stop AUTOMATICALLY
: assigning its own citizenship to the children born oversees to Japanese
And Japan didn't even ALLOW its own nationals outside of Japan for years
AFTER Meiji, save on official government business.
Again, there is *NO* "tradition" involved here, Mr Hopwood.
: HOWEVER, under that Japanese law the Japanese citizenship status of all such
: children born in the U.S. PRIO to 1924 continued in effect. Thus Nisei who
Nope.
They were still required to be registered as Japanese.
It was not automatic.
: >Also, it was not until ~1986 that Japan acknowledged the
: >right of children to a Japanese mother and non-Japanese father
: >to be Japanese citizens.
: Which points up the long-standing "racism" inherent in the Japanese society.
You mean "sexism". However, this also points out that the children of
Japanese are NOT automatically expected to be Japanese, nor to claim
allegience to the Emperor.
: >The word (doho) does not mean what you claim it means.
: >The repitition of a lie does NOT increase its validity.
: You use the term "lie" quite freely.
It fits.
: "doho" in areas under Japanese occupation were not only cooperative but useful: because of their knowledge of local conditions. Japanese forces in the
And the NON-Japanese in the Philippines, Burma, Indonesia, and other places
(Singapore) welcomed the Japanese at first as liberators.
: Phillipines received a tempestuous welcome from resident compatriots in Davao
You have a number of total Japanese residents there, yes?
: Any legitimate reason to think that many of the U.S. West Coast "doho" might
: have acted any differently if given a convenient opportunity, particularly in
Yes, Mr Hopwood.
They were loyal Americans.
: view of the information on espionage and potential sabotage gained from the
: MAGIC intercepts?
You mean, the information which didn't lead to the uncovering a SINGLE spy
ring?
Wjho...@aol.com
Fester) writes:
Wjho...@aol.com wrote:
>>But the Mejii restoration began in 1868 and Japan didn't
>>stop AUTOMATICALLY assigning its own citizenship to the
>>children born oversees to Japanese
>And Japan didn't even ALLOW its own nationals outside
>of Japan for years AFTER Meiji, save on official government
>business.
Not that it matters, but if Meiji began in 1868 and two boatloads of Japanese
laborers arrived in Hawaii in 1885, that wasn't too long, was it? Between
1886 and 1894 over 30,000 Japanese had arrived in Hawaii.
>>HOWEVER, under that Japanese law the Japanese
>>citizenship status of all such children born in the U.S.
>>PRIOR to 1924 continued in effect. Thus Nisei who
>Nope. They were still required to be registered as Japanese.
>It was not automatic.
I think I'll take Prof. Stephan's word on that rather than yours. He states:
"Until 1924 Tokyo regarded all children born of Japanese fathers in any part
of the world as Japanese citizens according to the principal of *jus
sanguinis.* Consequently, Nisei born (in the U.S.) during most of or before
1924 were Japanese subjects in the eyes of the Imperial governnent....On 1
December 1924 the Imperial Diet passed a law...(stating that) those born after
that date would lose their citizenship within two weeks of birth unless their
parents registered them at a Japanese consulate."
>And the NON-Japanese in the Philippines, Burma, Indonesia
>and other places (Singapore) welcomed the Japanese at first
>as liberators.
Huh? I'll bet. I guess that's why so many Filipino guerrillas disappeared
into the jungle to roam around sniping at Japanese, right? The same in the
other areas, I believe.
>>Any legitimate reason to think that many of the U.S.
>>West Coast "doho" might have acted any differently
>>if given a convenient opportunity
>Yes, Mr Hopwood. They were loyal Americans.
Come now, don't get so carried away with your enthusiasm for the wartime
Japanese.You mean the some 50,000 Japanese nationals on the West Coast were
all "loyal Americans?" And how about the thousands of adult Nisei at Tule
Lake who renounced their U.S. citizenship? All loyal Americans?
mfester
: In article <7dqqmp$pg7$3...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, mfe...@iisc.com@eyrie.org (Mike
: Fester) writes:
: >And Japan didn't even ALLOW its own nationals outside
: >of Japan for years AFTER Meiji, save on official government
: >business.
: Not that it matters, but if Meiji began in 1868 and two boatloads of Japanese
: laborers arrived in Hawaii in 1885, that wasn't too long, was it? Between
Uh, yes, Mr Hopwood, it does, as your incorrect definition of the word relies on"by tradition".
So, you have a window of less than 50 years in a nation with a recorded
history of nearly 2 millenia, and in that 50 years, only part of that
period included automatic Japanese citizenship for foreign born nationals.
OK, so your mis-definition of "doho" fails the "tradition" test.
: >>HOWEVER, under that Japanese law the Japanese
: >>citizenship status of all such children born in the U.S.
: >>PRIOR to 1924 continued in effect. Thus Nisei who
: >Nope. They were still required to be registered as Japanese.
: >It was not automatic.
: I think I'll take Prof. Stephan's word on that rather than yours. He states:
And I'll take both BF Chamberlain's word (professor of Japanese at Tokyo
Imperial University) and Payson Treat's word (professor of history at
Stanford) over yours.
BY LAW, all citzens of Japan needed to be registered in the koseki.
If Prof Stephan didn't know that, he has work to do. If he did, and reported
and you missed that, you are now corrected.
: >And the NON-Japanese in the Philippines, Burma, Indonesia
: >and other places (Singapore) welcomed the Japanese at first
: >as liberators.
: Huh? I'll bet.
Then for a change you would be correct. I believe it was pointed out else-
where that the family of Corey Aquino was among them.
: >>Any legitimate reason to think that many of the U.S.
: >>West Coast "doho" might have acted any differently
: >>if given a convenient opportunity
: >Yes, Mr Hopwood. They were loyal Americans.
: Come now, don't get so carried away with your enthusiasm for the wartime
: Japanese.
I don't.
Unlike you, however, I believe Americans are entitled to the protections
of the US Constitution.
One of the many differences between us.
: all "loyal Americans?" And how about the thousands of adult Nisei at Tule
: Lake who renounced their U.S. citizenship? All loyal Americans?
You mean those kept imprisoned even AFTER any threat from Japan remained?
By action of the US government?
Yes, Mr Hopwood, there were more loyal to the US than the US was to them;
they took nothing from the US. The US took their land, their savings, and
everything else they had. And never gave them a hearing, nor pressed charges,
to give them their day in court.
Don Kirkman
<7durj0$2...@dgs.dgsys.com>:
>In article <7dqqmp$pg7$3...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, mfe...@iisc.com@eyrie.org (Mike
>Fester) writes:
>>And Japan didn't even ALLOW its own nationals outside
>>of Japan for years AFTER Meiji, save on official government
>>business.
>Not that it matters, but if Meiji began in 1868 and two boatloads of Japanese
>laborers arrived in Hawaii in 1885, that wasn't too long, was it? Between
>1886 and 1894 over 30,000 Japanese had arrived in Hawaii.
And during that entire time they were immigrating to the Kingdom of
Hawaii, not the US. And stretching the time period down to 1924, about
55% of those Japanese immigrants returned to Japan; most of the
pre-territorial immigrants came on short term contracts *with the
intention of returning*, just as many European immigrants did.
>>>HOWEVER, under that Japanese law the Japanese
>>>citizenship status of all such children born in the U.S.
>>>PRIOR to 1924 continued in effect. Thus Nisei who
>>Nope. They were still required to be registered as Japanese.
>>It was not automatic.
>I think I'll take Prof. Stephan's word on that rather than yours. He states:
>"Until 1924 Tokyo regarded all children born of Japanese fathers in any part
>of the world as Japanese citizens according to the principal of *jus
>sanguinis.* Consequently, Nisei born (in the U.S.) during most of or before
>1924 were Japanese subjects in the eyes of the Imperial governnent....On 1
>December 1924 the Imperial Diet passed a law...(stating that) those born after
>that date would lose their citizenship within two weeks of birth unless their
>parents registered them at a Japanese consulate."
And according to Takaki, in 1926 about 85% of the Nisei were registered
dual citizens (i.e., it was obviously not universally registered by
Issei parents) and by 1941 the figure was roughly 50%.
Nobody mentions the thousands of children of European-immigrant parents
also held dual citizenship (and many still do) but that doesn't seem
relevant to those who make a special issue of Japanese dual citizenship.
[...]
>Come now, don't get so carried away with your enthusiasm for the wartime
>Japanese.You mean the some 50,000 Japanese nationals on the West Coast were
>all "loyal Americans?" And how about the thousands of adult Nisei at Tule
>Lake who renounced their U.S. citizenship? All loyal Americans?
Is it really that difficult to understand the principles of
proportionality and individual responsibility, or do you repeat this
argument periodically for the sake of argument? Nobody claims there
were no disloyals among the JAs; most informed and objective researchers
insist that the majority were *not* disloyal, yet you continue to post
the total numbers of the group, not the much smaller number of known or
reasonably suspected disloyals.
--
Don
Wjho...@aol.com
Kirkman) writes:
>[snip]And stretching the time period down to 1924, about
>55% of those Japanese immigrants returned to Japan; most
>of the pre-territorial immigrants came on short term contracts *
>with the intention of returning*,
Well, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Here's what you just said in a
previous post about Japanese immigrants returning to Japan:
>>mostly they were merely middle aged or elderly people
>>who had lived in the US a minimum of 17 years [snip](
>>(never opting to return to finish their lives in Japan, which
>>one would have expected if they were so emotionally tied
>>to Japan).
Make up your mind. Which was it?
>And according to Takaki, in 1926 about 85% of the
>Nisei were registered dual citizens (i.e., it was obviously
>not universally registered by Issei parents) and by 1941
>the figure was roughly 50%.
Well, as I see it you are saying Mr. Fester is wrong and Prof. Stephan is
right. If most of the Nisei were dual citizens and not registered by their
Issei parents, how did they become Japanese citizens other than automaticaly
under Japanese law prior to 1924?
>Nobody mentions the thousands of children of
>European-immigrant parents also held dual citizenship
>(and many still do) but that doesn't seem relevant to
>those who make a special issue of Japanese dual
>citizenship.
Oh, it's been mentioned, but most of such Euro-American dual citizens weren't
concentrated on the West Coast, we were not expecting attacks on the East
Coast from the Axis powers, and, IIRC Italy was the country mentioned and I
believe it was revealed that not all children of resident Italian parents at
that time were automatically dual citizens, but only some under certain
specfic circumstances.
>Nobody claims there were no disloyals among the JAs
One reading several frequent posters to this NG might easily receive a
different impression.
>most informed and objective researchers
>insist that the majority were *not* disloyal, yet
>you continue to post the total numbers of the group,
>not the much smaller number of known or
>reasonably suspected disloyals.
I have never contended that the majority were disloyal. Only that a large
enough number were suspected whose identities at the time were unknown, to
justify the action of the government in removing the group from military
areas until a determination of loyalty could be made. Here are the figures:
Out of a poplulation of approx 128,000 people of Japanse descent living on
the West Coast, over 11,000 of them were arrested after we were at war and
held for deportation on security charges at DOJ internment camps. Then,
after the evacuation another roughly 20,000 were segregated at Tule Lake
Segregation Center for disloyals. Together those two groups totalled approx
25% of the entire West Coast Japanese population. I should think that even
you might have to admit that this was a significant number. Didn't I see a
post where you said that the disloyals were only 6%?
W.J.Hopwood
Don Kirkman
>In article <7e34on$tve$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>, new...@abac.com (Don
>Kirkman) writes:
>>[snip]And stretching the time period down to 1924, about
>>55% of those Japanese immigrants returned to Japan; most
>>of the pre-territorial immigrants came on short term contracts *
>>with the intention of returning*,
>Well, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Here's what you just said in a
>previous post about Japanese immigrants returning to Japan:
>>>mostly they were merely middle aged or elderly people
>>>who had lived in the US a minimum of 17 years [snip](
>>>(never opting to return to finish their lives in Japan, which
>>>one would have expected if they were so emotionally tied
>>>to Japan).
>Make up your mind. Which was it?
Can argue, can't read. It is very obvious that the paragraph
immediately above refers to those WHO DID NOT RETURN AND THEREFORE WERE
BEING SENT TO THE CAMPS. Understand? Of those who returned to Japan
how many were in the US to be relocated in 1941? Or, change for change,
of those Issei who were sent to camp how many had returned to Japan?
>>And according to Takaki, in 1926 about 85% of the
>>Nisei were registered dual citizens (i.e., it was obviously
>>not universally registered by Issei parents) and by 1941
>>the figure was roughly 50%.
>Well, as I see it you are saying Mr. Fester is wrong and Prof. Stephan is
>right. If most of the Nisei were dual citizens and not registered by their
>Issei parents, how did they become Japanese citizens other than automaticaly
>under Japanese law prior to 1924?
Can argue, can't read. Who but you says 'most of the Nisei were dual
citizens'? That is precisely the point: only about half had been
registered as dual citizens. The rest did *not* have dual citizenship,
and some of those who did paid no attention to it; it was irrelevant to
their lives.
>>Nobody mentions the thousands of children of
>>European-immigrant parents also held dual citizenship
>>(and many still do) but that doesn't seem relevant to
>>those who make a special issue of Japanese dual
>>citizenship.
>
>Oh, it's been mentioned, but most of such Euro-American dual citizens weren't
>concentrated on the West Coast, we were not expecting attacks on the East
>Coast from the Axis powers, and, IIRC Italy was the country mentioned and I
>believe it was revealed that not all children of resident Italian parents at
>that time were automatically dual citizens, but only some under certain
>specfic circumstances.
I for one have cited German dual citizenship in earlier posts; I'm not
going to bother doing it again but it's in the DejaNews record.
Sometimes I wonder what's the point of providing facts if they're
forgotten so quickly. And why is it relevant *where* the dual citizens
were? The whole idea of relevance and the importance of dual
citizenship rests on a foundation of racist/ethnic/cultural
stereotyping.
>>Nobody claims there were no disloyals among the JAs
>One reading several frequent posters to this NG might easily receive a
>different impression.
>>most informed and objective researchers
>>insist that the majority were *not* disloyal, yet
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Can argue, can't read. If 'the majority were not disloyal,' what were
the rest?
>>you continue to post the total numbers of the group,
>>not the much smaller number of known or
>>reasonably suspected disloyals.
>I have never contended that the majority were disloyal. Only that a large
>enough number were suspected whose identities at the time were unknown, to
>justify the action of the government in removing the group from military
>areas until a determination of loyalty could be made. Here are the figures:
>Out of a poplulation of approx 128,000 people of Japanse descent living on
>the West Coast, over 11,000 of them were arrested after we were at war and
>held for deportation on security charges at DOJ internment camps.
Whatever the final number, eight or ten or twelve thousand were
apprehended almost immediately. No problem. Now, with the known bad
guys gone exactly what, other than prejudice, cast suspicion on those
about whom there wasn't a shred of adverse evidence?
> Then,
>after the evacuation another roughly 20,000 were segregated at Tule Lake
>Segregation Center for disloyals.
You obviously intend to ignore everything that has been written
previously on this point; those who are interested in a more open-minded
look at the issue can find it on DejaNews and in a number of Web
sources.
Here is one among many items I've written:
"As it turns out, you continue to press your understanding that all
those who, after a year or two in the camps, protested against the
questionnaires were 'openly pro-Japan,' even though I think an objective
reading of all the evidence will show that those included individuals
who did not want to be separated from the rest of their family,
protestors against the draft, protestors against the assumption
underlying the loyalty questions [i.e., that the Nisei had any sympathy
for Japan, or that they owed the Emperor any loyalty], as well as those
who actually did want Japan to win the war."
> Together those two groups totalled approx
>25% of the entire West Coast Japanese population. I should think that even
>you might have to admit that this was a significant number. Didn't I see a
>post where you said that the disloyals were only 6%?
You probably did. That's based partly on the figures Ringle cited and
partly on the fact that the camp residents were not automatically
disloyal simply because they used their Constitutional right of protest.
You also may be erroneously counting those who were interned from
Hawaii, since they were not part of the West Coast population. *IF* 25%
were disloyal that would be a significant number, but you haven't made a
case that the actual rate was anywhere near that.
--
Don
Mike Fester
: In article <7e34on$tve$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>, new...@abac.com (Don
"[snip]And stretching the time period down to 1924, about
55% of those Japanese immigrants returned to Japan; most
of the pre-territorial immigrants came on short term contracts *
with the intention of returning*,"
: Well, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Here's what you just said in a
Uh, no.
Simply, you are again cutting and pasting to suit an agenda.
The above refers to most of those who left Japan at one point or another. As
for the below;
"mostly they were merely middle aged or elderly people
who had lived in the US a minimum of 17 years [snip](
(never opting to return to finish their lives in Japan, which
one would have expected if they were so emotionally tied
to Japan)."
This refers to those Issei who took up permanant residence in the US, and
their condition by the time the US decided to throw them into concetration
camps.
: Make up your mind. Which was it?
Mr Hopwood, you do not do your cause credit by being either incapable of
properly reading information presented to you, or deliberately misrepresenting
same.
Wjho...@aol.com
Kirkman) writes:
>It seems to me I heard somewhere that Wjho...@aol.com wrote in article
><3710b571...@news.curie.dialix.com.au>:
>
>>In article <7e34on$tve$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>, new...@abac.com (Don
>>Kirkman) writes:
>
>>>[snip]And stretching the time period down to 1924, about
>>>55% of those Japanese immigrants returned to Japan; most
>>>of the pre-territorial immigrants came on short term contracts *
>>>with the intention of returning*,
>
>>Well, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Here's what you just said in a
>>previous post about Japanese immigrants returning to Japan:
>
>>>>mostly they were merely middle aged or elderly people
>>>>who had lived in the US a minimum of 17 years [snip](
>>>>(never opting to return to finish their lives in Japan, which
>>>>one would have expected if they were so emotionally tied
>>>>to Japan).
>
>>Make up your mind. Which was it?
>
>Can argue, can't read. It is very obvious that the paragraph
>immediately above refers to those WHO DID NOT RETURN AND THEREFORE WERE
>BEING SENT TO THE CAMPS. Understand? Of those who returned to Japan
>how many were in the US to be relocated in 1941? Or, change for change,
>of those Issei who were sent to camp how many had returned to Japan?
Cool down, please. Let's not get nasty. For a moment I thought yours was a
typical post by Mr. Fester. You see, what you wrote is obfuscation to the
nnth degree. I still can't figure out what you are trying to say. I guess
it's that some Issei went back to Japan and some decided to stay here. So
what? It still doesn't change the fact that many of those who stayed had
deep emotional and other ties to the mother country.
>>And according to Takaki, in 1926 about 85% of the
>>>Nisei were registered dual citizens (i.e., it was obviously
>>>not universally registered by Issei parents) and by 1941
>>>the figure was roughly 50%.
>
>>Well, as I see it you are saying Mr. Fester is wrong and Prof. Stephan is
>>right. If most of the Nisei were dual citizens and not registered by their
>>Issei parents, how did they become Japanese citizens other than automaticaly
>>under Japanese law prior to 1924?
>
>Can argue, can't read. Who but you says 'most of the Nisei were dual
>citizens'? That is precisely the point: only about half had been
>registered as dual citizens. The rest did *not* have dual citizenship,
Come, come, now. Admit that more than half is MOST, is it not? Not just I,
but the Office of Naval Intelligence said most of the Nisei were dual
citizens. An estimated 52% in fact. (See ONI Report "Japanese Intelligence
and Propaganda in the United States During 1941"--Dec. 4, 1941). As for
Hawaii alone, Stephan states that over 60% of the Nisei held dual
citizenship. ("Hawaii Under the Rising Sun"--P.23-24)
>I for one have cited German dual citizenship in earlier posts; I'm not
>going to bother doing it again but it's in the DejaNews record.
>Sometimes I wonder what's the point of providing facts if they're
>forgotten so quickly.
Maybe your so-called *facts* were so quickly forgotten because they weren't
facts at all. Arnold Krammer, professor of history at Texas A&M and author
of several acclaimed books one re German-Americans interned in WW2 another
about Nazi POWs in America, has this to say: "...after 1939, Berlin no longer
considered German citizens who became citizens of new countries to be
citizens of the Third Reich..."
>And why is it relevant *where* the dual citizens
>were? The whole idea of relevance and the importance of dual
>citizenship rests on a foundation of racist/ethnic/cultural
>stereotyping.
Hooey! The whole relevance of dual citizenship in wartime rests on the
question of loyalty. To which country is the dual citizen loyal when the two
countries are at war with each other?
>Whatever the final number, eight or ten or twelve thousand were
>apprehended almost immediately. No problem. Now, with the
>known bad guys gone exactly what, other than prejudice, cast
>suspicion on those about whom there wasn't a shred of adverse
>evidence?
Just good vibes I guess. Proved correct when the pro-Japan boys started to
blow bugles and march at Tule Lake around hollering "banzai" and asking to be
expatriated to fight for the Emperor.
>"As it turns out, you continue to press your understanding that all
>those who, after a year or two in the camps, protested against the
>questionnaires were 'openly pro-Japan,' even though I think an objective
>reading of all the evidence will show that those included individuals
>who did not want to be separated from the rest of their family,
>protestors against the draft, protestors against the assumption
>underlying the loyalty questions [i.e., that the Nisei had any sympathy
>for Japan, or that they owed the Emperor any loyalty], as well as those
>who actually did want Japan to win the war."
Yes, we disagree. I tend to give more weight to "those who actually did want
Japan to win the war." And I have little sympathy for the "protesters"
also. Nobody else in the country could get away with that protesting against
govenment questionaires during the war or against the draft.
(Balance consisting of repititious material deleted)
W.J.Hopwood