Japanese Internment: Redress

Between 1941 and 1946, 120,000 Japanese Americans were interned across the West Coast of the United States and removed from their homes and communities. The use of internment camps is a dark point in the history of the United States, one that was not largely addressed until years after the last camps closed. Following reintegration into American society, Japanese Americans strived to be patriotic and unproblematic citizens in an effort to move past internment and return to life prior to World War II. However, in the 1960s, alongside large societal shifts in civil rights discussions, younger generations of Japanese Americans were motivated to share both their own and their elder’s stories in an effort to obtain some form of redress for internment, oftentimes through public-facing means, including congressional debates, museum exhibits, and oral history hearings. The use of public history was successful both in bringing different generations of the Japanese American community together and in advocating Congress for redress. Ultimately, public-facing advocacy led to the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which granted reparations to formerly interned Japanese Americans.

In the years leading to World War II and the internment of Japanese Americans, anti-Japanese rhetoric plagued the United States. In the early 20^th century, the United States saw an increase in Japanese immigrants, specifically along the West Coast of the country. While immigrants arrived in large numbers, they were not always accepted and were subject to hostile environments. The California government passed discriminatory legislation, including the California Alien Land Law, limiting people of Japanese descent from owning land because they were unable to become citizens. These hostile acts and sentiments only grew as the Second World War heightened. White Americans became increasingly weary of Japanese Americans, the ultimate point being the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in December of 1941. Shortly after this attack, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which greatly altered the lives and communities of Japanese Americans. This order created exclusion zones, meaning any person of Japanese ancestry who resided within said zones had to leave their homes and report to a distant facility, often referred to as internment camps. Japanese Americans remained in the camps for approximately 5 years.

Internment camp conditions and the experiences of Japanese Americans within said camps varied. Each interned individual had a different experience, depending on their familial status, the material items they were able to hold onto, the positions they were able to secure within the camp, and many other factors. For example, Take Uchida, a Japanese American teacher, was separated from her husband and sent to a different camp following Order 9066. She was moved to multiple camps during World War II and stated, “we lost almost all our material possessions when we were so suddenly uprooted and shipped out of Idaho” (Daniels 1991). Many Japanese were forced to part with important possessions and truly start their lives over within a camp. It is estimated that with inflation accounted for, Japanese Americans lost approximately $5 billion during their internment (Getlin 1988). Mary Tsukamoto, another Japanese American, remembered “the shock and grief and the sorrow on top of everything else that was happening to us”. Internment caused real emotional trauma as people quickly left their homes, jobs and communities.  

When internment camps were officially closed in 1946, Japanese Americans tried to return to normalcy, many not speaking publicly about their experiences in internment. At the same time, an influential civil rights group, the Japanese American Citizens League (JACL) attempted to promote a patriotic image of Japanese Americanss. Internment camps were rooted in racist beliefs that Japanese Americans were not to be trusted and were anti-American. Without condemning the use of internment, the JACL tried to ignore the struggles the community faced during the war period and instead told “stories of Japanese Americans soldiers who provided loyalty to America” (Nakanishi 60). The JACL wanted society to view Japanese Americans as model citizens, an attempt to erase earlier, negative beliefs about the community. Since the JACL held a prominent role in American society, their avoidance of directly speaking about internment left the experiences of Japanese Americans out of the public view until the 1960s.

In the 1960s, tides shifted within the Japanese community in terms of redress, as a younger generation of Japanese Americans, referred to as the Nisei, watched the United States grapple with the rise of the Civil Rights Movement. Inspired by their fellow Americans to fight against racial injustices, many younger Japanese Americans started to view their own internment “as another form of racial oppression”. This new outlook led the Nisei to begin speaking out and educating others about the grave impact internment had, an important step in reaching redress. A major project Japanese Americans put their energy towards was repealing the Emergency Detention Act, often referred to as Title II, which would have allowed the US government to “detain any person suspected as a threat to internal security during a national emergency”. This law worried Japanese Americans because of the similarities it had to laws that allowed their own internment, something they did not want any other groups to have to endure. The approach the Japanese community took to fight for the repeal of Title II was imperative to their future success with redress, as it brought the struggles of formerly interned Japanese to the public for the first time through “educational campaigns…rallies and lectures at universities” and “a media campaign…[where] Japanese Americans appeared on local television and radio”. These public-facing endeavors pushed the Japanese experience into the mainstream, allowing them to share their personal experiences, “desirable for it would retell the Evacuation story to a new generation…a national tragedy hardly recorded in textbooks”. These campaigns elicited a positive response and many government officials who previously supported Japanese internment finally accepted the terrible nature of it. Japanese American senators were crucial in pushing legislation to repeal the act, including Senator Daniel Inouye, who stated “Title II is a blotch in our democracy that has no place in our books”. Inouye’s support for the repeal of Title II was impactful because he fit the image of a devout American, as he had fought in World War II, but he was also able to criticize the nation for unfair actions, something earlier leaders in the Japanese community had strayed away from. Following a variety of public-facing endeavors, “the act of resurrecting the Internment…was gradually embraced by diverse sectors of the Japanese American community” (Nakanashi 2009). The community buy-in was vital in putting forward a cohesive front to the government when petitioning for redress.  

The grassroots activism of Japanese Americans as well as increased public awareness of internment throughout the 1960s and 1970s directly led to multiple developments in the redress movement both within the Japanese community as well as the federal government. New leadership within the JACL, specifically that of Clifford Uyeda, continued to push forward a case for redress, formally proposing a plan at the 1968 JACL convention, asking for “$25,000 for each individual or heir who suffered from the mass incarceration” (Daniels 1999). Although discussions surrounding redress were common by this time, the formal plan presented in 1968 was the first to be officially adopted by the influential advocacy group. The earlier advocacy efforts of Japanese Americans influenced the JACL’s formal redress plan. Uyeda also spent careful time appealing to elderly Japanese who remained wary about reparations, truly wanting all Japanese Americans to stand together (Murray 2008). In the years following, support within the JACL for monetary redress grew, with 93% of respondents in one survey in favor, demonstrating the way the Japanese community had joined forces with one another. Furthermore, a prominent leader within JACL, John Tateishi “seeked the passage of legislation that would create a federal commission”. Tateishi’s efforts were successful, resulting in Congress’ creation of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC), which had a goal of reviewing the situation of internment and offering remedies. This commission held public hearings, which allowed Japanese Americans to explain why redress was necessary, while at the same time educating “the American public [who] knew little, if anything about incarceration” as well as prominent members of Congress, who would ultimately decide if redress legislation was warranted. Within these hearings, people made calls for redress and explained their personal losses. The feelings of many formerly interned Japanese Americans were described during the Chicago hearings by Jack Nakagawa who stated, “I believe that a financial consideration is in order so that the public and government officials will understand that a ‘so sorry’ statement is not enough, since we were deprived of liberty”. These direct appeals from the community clearly laid out their beliefs and allowed everyday people the opportunity to speak to influential government officials.

The use of the CWRIC allowed the experiences of Japanese Americans to be heard at a formal level, directly leading Congress to take action. While most congress members were understanding of the experiences of the Japanese, not all were quick to accept redress as a remedy. For example, in a Senate Debate on Reparations for Interned Japanese Americans, Senator Simpson stated “an apology may be long overdue and may be so appropriate. But, coupled with money, it takes away some of the sincerity of the apology. Simpson recognized the atrocities committed against Japanese Americans, but urged Congress to issue an apology and then, move on to more pressing issues, as Japanese internment was in the past. Other senators argued that of course in hindsight, internment was a terrible atrocity, but at the time of the internment, the United States felt that it was necessary for national security. These views demonstrated the hesitancy of Congress to issue redress in monetary forms, something many were and still are, uncomfortable with. In these senators’ view, the original intent of internment was just, therefore the federal government was not obligated to provide redress at a later date. Furthermore, issuing redress was costly and legislators might have worried that a successful Japanese campaign for redress would have opened Congress up to a myriad of appeals from other groups who were subjected to unfair treatment from the United States government. Legislators are often weary of large government spending, especially if the spending does not benefit a majority of their constituents. On the other hand, Senator Evans stated “the [redress] legislation would serve as a symbol to all that the United States can come to terms with its own tragic mistake”. He understood that while redress would not undo the wrongs, it was a step that could be taken to send a message that America in the 1980’s did not stand for the treatment that was imposed on Japanese Americans during WWII.

Ultimately, the work of the JACL and senators such as Senator Evans was successful and Japanese Americans received reparations for their internment. In 1988, President Reagan signed The Civil Liberties Act which “provides for $20,000 tax-free payment to each of the 60,000 survivors” of Japanese Internment. Many of the Japanese who fought for and received reparations were committed to using the money for good. In a newspaper article from 1988, a man was interviewed who felt that the important Civil Liberties Act was “a healing process which says the country recognizes that a wrong was being done and…is trying to make amends for this”. Although the process to redress was long, it was important for the public and America to recognize the experiences of Japanese Americans, as well as the crimes committed against them.  

The internment of Japanese Americans was and will always be a terrible aspect of American history, one that deserves recognition, study, and understanding. Public-facing history was imperative to Japanese American’s redress movement, as it led to a widespread understanding of internment. Government officials became more aware of the grave atrocities that occurred once greater emphasis was placed on hearing from Japanese Americans directly. While reparations did not erase the past, they were an important step forward in the history of America, as it was a clear sign that the government was finally taking responsibility for internment.

Written by S. Gill, History, LMU 2021

For Further Reading:

Daniels, Roger. “Japanese Americans: From Relocation to Redress”. University of Washington Press, 1991.

Getlin, Josh. “Senate Votes to Pay WWII Internees: Quick House Concurrence seen for Reparations to Japanese-Americans.” Los Angeles Times, p. 3. 21 Apr 1988, ProQuest. Web. 6 Dec. 2020. 

Murray, Alice Yang. Historical Memories of the Japanese American Internment and the Struggle for Redress. Stanford University Press, 2008.

Nakanashi, Don. “Surviving Democracy’s Mistake: Japanese Americans and the Enduring Legacy of Executive Order 9066”. Amerasia Journal, vol. 35, no. 3.  2009.