I love George Carlin. . Rights aren' t "rights" if someone can, take threres They' re privileges. That' s all we' ever had in, this country: a bill of privilege
Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #2 - codyxvasco (05/01/2013) [-]
Question: How many of you knew about the concentration camps America used for the Japanese citizens in World War Two?
User avatar #33 to #2 - landfall (05/01/2013) [-]
There's an incredible difference between internment camps and concentration camps, if you're going to preach about it you may as well get your terminology right.
#35 to #2 - neverposting (05/01/2013) [-]
While the internment camps were not a nice thing, and are by no means a gold star on American History, it is ludicrous to call them 'concentration camps'. People Were fed, had fresh water, and the kids even had schooling in the camps, I'm not even American, and have been critical of America in the past, but those camps were not 'concentration camps'.
#51 to #35 - tranminh (05/01/2013) [-]
Idk about America, but here in Canada we called them "internment camps". The living conditions weren't "bad" but they were pretty brutal, families uprooted and relocated to small rooms, and all of their physical assets were seized by the government to be sold/used for the war effort. I can see the reasoning behind it, a lot of the older Japanese Canadians have roots in Japan, and that militaristic culture is pretty ingrained in them, but at the same time it was an unjust thing to do
#37 to #2 - anon (05/01/2013) [-]
I learned about that in 3rd grade. I live in the northwest though so it was part of my town's history play
#42 to #2 - notafunnyguy (05/01/2013) [-]
hell, i live in New Brunswick, Canada and we have a camp just a few minutes outside of the city i live in, fredericton, when you heard towards minto
#43 to #2 - anon (05/01/2013) [-]
This is a standard practice, if you go to war with a nation you make sure that their nationals don't go all fifth columnist on your arse.
#44 to #2 - anon (05/01/2013) [-]
What about the concentration camps the Japanese had all over Japanese occupied Asia? A surprisingly small amount of people know about them. They were very similar to Nazi death cams, and hundreds of thousands were killed just for being a different race.
#13 to #2 - anon (05/01/2013) [-]
Canadians also had them.

Most people don't know that for some reason.
User avatar #34 to #2 - thebannedzombie (05/01/2013) [-]
Did you bother to ask him WHY they had them? Because some Jap (who had lived on Hawaii for decades and whom everyone considered to be a nice man who had settled down) went postal when he saw his homeland's planes flying overhead sewing death upon his neighbors. Because of the fanatical devotion of the Japanese people to their emperor, it was very, VERY plausible that many would fight as an insurgent force against the Americans.

Combine plausible potential for disaster with an incident proving the potential and you have a damned good reason for people to get scared. Also, at this time it was still common for countries to completely dehumanize the enemy in times of war. Japs were dirty rats who raped babies and ate the corpses of their enemies. Germans were demons who also raped babies and gunned down women in the streets. Political correctness wasn't an issue.
#53 to #34 - tranminh (05/01/2013) [-]
I made the exact same argument with my history teacher up here in canada, but doing something because it makes sense doesn't always mean it's right
User avatar #55 to #53 - thebannedzombie (05/01/2013) [-]
I disagree. Doing otherwise would mean valuing the temporary comfort of a few people against the lives of many. The logic is no different than locking up people suspected of a felony before the trial reaches an end even if the felony they are suspected of is a white collar crime, yet one is acceptable and the other isn't.

Political correctness is not a justifiable reason to throw common sense out the window. An insurgency movement on the west coast with the absolute discipline of the Japanese people of that time could have quite literally cost us the war. And any delay in our victory would have been measure in millions of lives of both Allied soldiers and Chinese civilians.
#68 to #55 - tranminh (05/02/2013) [-]
I do agree that the internment camps were a necessary cruelty, but that doesn't mean it was morally right, on top of that you're just dealing in "what ifs" rather than looking at what actually occurred.

On top of that the admiral of the Japanese navy said, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

Any insurgency would have been promptly put down and the internment camps would be instated anyway. But what happened, happened, there's no reason to be so bitter with **** that happened so long ago, which is what I hate when Israel cries anti-Semitism
User avatar #69 to #68 - thebannedzombie (05/02/2013) [-]
And I disagree once again.

1. n, A person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

Whether or not something is morally right depends entirely upon whose morals you are basing it on. There is no universal code of morals, as the moment you tried to print out a rulebook everyone would be fighting over every single defining feature of the text. Meaning it is not morally right in your opinion.

As for the "what if's" when looking back on the decisions that were made, that is the only thing worth considering as that is the only way for us to appreciate the gravity of the choices they made.

The opinion of the Admiral is insignificant when compared to the absolute authority of the emperor. There were multiple instances of the Emperor overruling his generals despite their superior grasp of military strategy.

And the entire point of an insurgent force is that it is nearly impossible to quell especially when you are engaged in a war on multiple fronts. If you need proof of the effectiveness of such a force, all you need to do is look at the successful actions of the Philippine resistance to Japanese occupation. Even after a complete victory over the nation, they were steadily pushed back as they were unable to quell the resistance despite an absurdly superior military force. Removing the option of forced relocation and discriminatory practices against Japanese Americans, they would be left with only reactionary measures after attacks (i.e. the current war on terror in the middle east minus drones, satellites, and advanced intelligence networks). And we all know how successful THAT has been.

The "rifle behind every blade of grass" works both ways, as the guerrilla forces are hiding while the occupying force is out in the open.
#70 to #69 - tranminh (05/02/2013) [-]
Morals are a gray area I understand, but the thing that I have issue with isn't the establishment of the internment camps, but the way it was carried out over time. The prison camps for Nazi's had much more privileges than the average citizen, let alone the Japanese prisoner. Assets were seized and years of building roots in a foreign land were demolished. If there was more care put towards these camps, ensuring that they not only protected the average american from the possibility of Japanese uprising but protecting the Japanese American from the possibility of racial violence, then it would have been a wise move by the government.

I also still think that a guerilla movement by the Japanese would be implausible, most of the Japanese population would have been children, a fair number would be 1st generation (american born) and the ones that would have been exposed to Japanese militarism would have been older. Your examples of a guerilla force contain a foreign power occupying a foreign land...it does not translate to the case of the United States, a home power occupying homeland.

User avatar #71 to #70 - thebannedzombie (05/02/2013) [-]
Posh prison camps are a strategic maneuver. If word gets to the other side (for example during prisoner exchanges) that by getting captured they would not suffer in a ****** camp and would in fact live quite comfortably that is one less reason for them to fight to the last man. Giving them undue cause to fear surrendering an being capture only strengthens the resolve of the enemy soldiers. Unlike the Japanese forces, the regular German troops wouldn't commit suicide to avoid capture. Every soldier who puts down his gun is one of ours who didn't have to die.

It is also a matter of "maintaining civility in war". If we tortured and abused our prisoners then the Germans would do the same. For example, the German bombers ****** up once and bombed a British residential district (when they were aiming for strategic targets). Both sides spent the rest of the war bombing civilian targets as each tried to repay the other in kind. While sometimes cruel garrison commanders would mistreat prisoners, the general rule was that was a very stupid thing to do.

As for foreign power utilizing guerrilla tactics in enemy land, look no further than the soviets. They maintained very effective insurgent forces behind German lines for the duration of the war in Europe. All it takes is a few individuals knowing the land to guide the rest. The same could be said of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of the insurgents are trained in other nations and then sent in to join the conflict. It does not reduce their effectiveness.
#72 to #71 - tranminh (05/02/2013) [-]
I would argue that the prison camps were just acting in accordance to the geneva conventions, not just a strategic value. Regardless even though a Japanese soldier would commit suicide to avoid capture it doesn't mean halfway around the world you can uproot so many people, destroy years of hard work and take their assets.

I believe your point is null when speaking of the partisans, because each partisan group was funded and supplied by the Soviets, but they mainly comprised of ethnic groups, that's why you have latvian partisans, belarusian partisans, bulgarian partisans, armenian partisans etc. not the broad term Russian partisans. On top of that each resistance movement retained its power and although some were absorbed into the Soviet Union, many became satellite states, showing that there's a clear ethnic separation between them.

As for your point about guerilla tactics, it definitely does reduce their effectiveness. The most basic element you need to be a guerilla fighter is to be able to blend into the environment. That means looking like everyone else. Guerilla movements in latin america, eastern europe, vietnam and others, they were all successful because they were able to blend in. Latinos in latin america, asians in asia, white people in eastern europe. A small minority of Japanese in America would reduce that capability to blend into the population.

In addition, language is a huge deciding factor. The main reason why Che Guevara failed in Bolivia, and why America right now is also failing in the middle east, is because there was a huge language barrier. Not being able to speak as well as the next american is a huge blow to their ability to blend in.

Also on guerilla warfare is how they are supplied. Every guerilla force relies on the peasants. Mao, Fidel, Washington, Lenin, the Partisans, Ho Chi Minh, each and every one of them maintained their strength through support of the peasants. In America there would be zero support from the majority!
User avatar #73 to #72 - thebannedzombie (05/02/2013) [-]
The laws of war are only enforced upon the losing side. The British forces had no qualms over bombing residential districts despite the obvious violations. Yet they still it was common practice to treat prisoners well despite their being better targets for their wrath than civilian housing districts. My comment about the discipline of the Japanese forces in that instance was to emphasize the lack of fanatical devotion in the common German soldier an the plausible effectiveness of the carrot stick tactic.

Most of the Partisans were planned defense forces for occupied soviet states, however escaped prisoners from German camps formed multiple groups outside of the borders of the Soviet Union prior to the war. These groups were most active in France, Poland, and a rare few in Germany itself. Prisoners taken from another country escaping to foreign land under hostile occupation.

There are multiple ways to fight a Guerrilla war. A large force consumes large amounts of supplies while a small force quite obviously consumes proportionally less. They do not need to blend into an entire population, because as I mentioned above the prevention tactic you are defaming is racial profiling an mass incarceration. Without rounding up the whole populace, it is quite plausible for a small portion of the Japanese American population to gather intelligence and sabotage wartime industry while hiding amongst their own people.

Most spoke at least basic English, and they only needed to be indiscernible from their fellow immigrants to act with impunity.

As for supply, terrorist cells in Europe do not require the approval of the majority to achieve catastrophic success. The recent Boston bombings were not met with cheers of the suppressed american populace. Once again, guerrilla warfare takes many forms and in some cases the fighters go to work, pay for their own food, and appear as normal citizens. All it takes is one man to smuggle a gun, or a bomb.
#74 to #73 - tranminh (05/02/2013) [-]
okay it's time to end this.

We both made great points and arguments but at this point in time we could just go on forever throwing examples from history to apply to a possible scenario.

So here's why you're wrong.

We both agree that the establishment of the internment camps was a good move for the government. However I made the point where the government seized assets and mistreated the Japanese prisoners, and I stated that their is no reason for this. They are prisoners of war, but they are still American citizens bound by the constitution. There was no reason to mistreat them to such an extent, other than war hysteria and racist ideals. You have not provided a rebuttal as of yet.

You made a very valid point discussing the possibilities of a guerilla movement. But you are edging closer and closer to just describing terrorism, which is much different. You just describing possibilities. It's wartime of course there's always a possibility. Even if it's the smallest chance of threat would you act so harshly? Why isn't the government creating internment camps for Arabs right now? How come it didn't happen again during Korea?

Once again, the way it was carried out was unjust; the government had no need to be so careless and you have yet to defy that.
User avatar #75 to #74 - thebannedzombie (05/02/2013) [-]
I honestly didn't feel the need to. The government did not seize their assets, they simply made no attempt to help the people they rounded up to maintain them. It was an oversight, and those with friends in their communities who were able to arrange for others to care for their properties and finances made out just fine. Those who did not however were forced to sell off their properties and belongings not by the government, but by debt and unpaid bills. I really have no idea where you got the idea that the US government seized anything of theirs at all.

Terrorism is simply a label assigned to guerrilla fighters whom you are fighting against. Also, modern day terrorists have the advantage of being armed with more destructive weaponry.
#77 to #75 - tranminh (05/02/2013) [-]
we're also talking about potential terrorists in a time where metal was scarce, supplies were being rationed and hoarding was pretty much a crime. You still did not answer my point "should we lock up a whole race based on the possibility of a threat?" whatever happened to being innocent before proven guilty?
User avatar #80 to #77 - thebannedzombie (05/03/2013) [-]
Another point, as far as incarceration is concerned "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't actually exist. In the event of a long and drawn out trial completely innocent people who are simply under suspicion of a crime can be locked up in prison for YEARS. They receive no compensation for the years of their life that are stolen from them. Their lives can be completely destroyed (for the same as stated above, it is very difficult to manage finances from a cell block). The logic behind it? The risk isn't worth that person's freedom. That doesn't just apply to violent crimes where that person might be viewed as a potential danger to others. White collar criminals get locked up just the same, innocent people deprived of their freedom just on the chance that they might try to leave the country.

The Canadian judicial system is not terribly different, though it might be slightly more expedient. That is just how our nations handle things.
User avatar #78 to #77 - thebannedzombie (05/03/2013) [-]
I have never seen anything about their boats being seized, and it wouldn't be worth my time or yours to base my information off of a wiki article. And I do believe I answered that quite plainly. I think it was a reasonable decision and yes, in that instance where we are at war with the vast majority of an entire ethnic group it makes sense to target members of that ethnic group.
Responding to a point in your previous comment #74 which you will probably bring up again, the Korean war was a proxy war with the Soviet Union and China, meaning you would have to target all immigrants from the entire soviet block, China, AND Korea. In addition to this we were only at war with North Korea and were supporting our allies in South Korea. It would be practically impossible to avoid a disastrous retaliation from the South Korean populace when they were already having trouble picking out who was on which side. There was also no Niihau incident to give them cause to consider the possibility.
As for the current war, it is once again far more complicated. We have both allies and enemies in the arab world. We are not at war with all arab nations, and in the places where we are fighting a war we are not fighting the majority of the population. In the instance of Japan, the entire country was behind the war effort whereas in this case it is rather well understood that we are fighting a minority in the Arab population. Our enemies come from many countries so it is impossible to round up immigrants from a single nation and solve the problem.
#79 to #78 - tranminh (05/03/2013) [-]
You need to login to view this link

^couldn't find the book, but this will do.

" I think it was a reasonable decision and yes, in that instance where we are at war with the vast majority of an entire ethnic group it makes sense to target members of that ethnic group. "

Okay as I have said, the targeting is not the issue, it's the way it was carried out. Protecting the Japanese Americans from the White Americans and vice versa would have been the most viable choice, as well as supplying the Japanese with ample living conditions. Instead, the government let war hysteria and racial profiling override their judgement, and THAT was the mistake.

User avatar #81 to #79 - thebannedzombie (05/03/2013) [-]
It was a military operation with a military budget and military oversight. It was cheap and accomplished it's goal. It was successful and was everything you would expect it to be when run by a military engaged in an all-out war.
#76 to #75 - tranminh (05/02/2013) [-]
nope, in canada and in the states, boats were seized, wikipedia only tells a small part of the story
User avatar #3 to #2 - siridontcare (05/01/2013) [-]
I do.
User avatar #4 to #3 - codyxvasco (05/01/2013) [-]
I probably should have said "didn't know". huh...
User avatar #6 to #4 - siridontcare (05/01/2013) [-]
They teach it in school.
User avatar #25 to #2 - whitcher (05/01/2013) [-]
What, do people think Germany invented the concentration camp or something?
User avatar #26 to #25 - codyxvasco (05/01/2013) [-]
No, but they think America is too good to do something like that. Or at least that's what I blindly thought.
User avatar #27 to #26 - whitcher (05/01/2013) [-]
Oohohoh that's a doozy.
#10 to #2 - anon (05/01/2013) [-]
We have parades for Japanese Americans where I come from. There's always a speaker from the camps.
User avatar #14 to #2 - FurryBalls (05/01/2013) [-]
"internment" camps. and yeah I knew. they weren't treated bad, not great, but not bad. Also if you enlisted then you were freed from the camps. I think.
User avatar #18 to #2 - chuckbillrow (05/01/2013) [-]
im assuming almost everyone... Its one of those things that gets taught multiple times through out school
User avatar #23 to #18 - codyxvasco (05/01/2013) [-]
Not to me. I was told this once this year and was pretty shocked.
#17 to #2 - anon (05/01/2013) [-]
Confinement camps, not concentration camps. And they were partially to protect Asians from violence from prejudiced Americans, and partially a prejudiced attempt to stop Asians from violence against Americans.
User avatar #60 to #17 - Ruspanic ONLINE (05/01/2013) [-]
Maybe. I was taught they were established to prevent Japanese espionage. They didn't know who was a spy, so they rounded them all up.
#54 to #17 - anon (05/01/2013) [-]
Yeah, you're a delusional ****** faggot for trying to justify internment camps.

"Yes, just spend years in here doing labor for us. It's for your safety."

Canada kept people in internment camps well after the war was over. I'm sure the US did as well.
User avatar #22 to #17 - codyxvasco (05/01/2013) [-]
My teacher told me they were concentration camps, I know they weren't death or labor camps, but they were still concentration camps.
#32 to #2 - ogloko (05/01/2013) [-]
question: how many people did america incinerate in these camps?
User avatar #31 to #2 - secretdestroyers (05/01/2013) [-]
You mean from history class or from real life? 'Cause I gotta tell ya, the 40s are still a bit of a blur to me. After I dodged the draft, I spent a good portion of the war in Canada high on some really good **** !
User avatar #45 to #2 - mexicandudeinsd ONLINE (05/01/2013) [-]
i knew bout the camps they sent japs incase they were spies...... not as bad as extermination camps
User avatar #67 to #45 - codyxvasco (05/01/2013) [-]
I couldn't be more aware of this! I was really only curious about how much others knew.

Sorry, I'll never try something like that again.
User avatar #5 to #2 - bushingenna (05/01/2013) [-]
a lot of people? its not like they try to hide it from people, and they weren't for exterminations....
User avatar #7 to #5 - codyxvasco (05/01/2013) [-]
I'm aware, but far too many Americans don't know about it.

You learn this in 11th grade around here, I feel it's a part of history we just kinda don't talk about as much.

We'll learn about what Hitler did by the age of 10, but we don't obtain this information until we are taught at 17. Or at least for me and my friends.
User avatar #8 to #7 - bushingenna (05/01/2013) [-]
i learned in 7th but i knew about it b4 that thanks to kenji by fort minor
User avatar #9 to #8 - codyxvasco (05/01/2013) [-]
Are you from the US?
User avatar #12 to #9 - lolbutts (05/01/2013) [-]
I am. Learned it in around 6th grade.
User avatar #48 to #9 - thephantur (05/01/2013) [-]
I'm from the USA. We had these in our middle school textbooks and talked about it.
User avatar #15 to #9 - bushingenna (05/01/2013) [-]
User avatar #11 to #7 - srslyjakecease (05/01/2013) [-]
Pretty sure i heard about them when i was in elementary school, and im from the ******* south, the pits of the education system. People may not think about them every day, but we mostly know about them. at least the people i associate with do.
#52 to #7 - winglit ONLINE (05/01/2013) [-]
Its actually taught to us in like 7th grade History class when we go over WW2 in my district... whether people choose to listen is another story, but every student in my school was told about the camps... Also... I dont like you... Arrogant *********
#29 - anon (05/01/2013) [-]
****** quote from a bitter old sod.
#38 to #29 - Visual (05/01/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#50 to #29 - winglit ONLINE (05/01/2013) [-]
I feel like I need a flamethrower now
User avatar #30 to #29 - secretdestroyers (05/01/2013) [-]
Ok 2 things: 1. That's Mr. Old (Dead) Sod to you, bro!

2. Shut the **** up.
#28 - anon (05/01/2013) [-]
Definition of "Right:" That which is morally, legally, or ethically proper
So whether or not someone can take away your privilege of doing something, doing that thing could still be morally, legally, or ethically proper, therefore you would still have the right even if you don't have the ability. For example the right to freedom of speech is universal because it is morally or ethically proper no matter where you are even if it is not necessarily legal.
#36 to #28 - ichbinlecher (05/01/2013) [-]
Wrong right.
#21 - tosho (05/01/2013) [-]
Murica in ww2

"you'd like to volunteer? Sorry, boy. You're a ****** and this is a white man's war"

2 years later.

#40 to #21 - oedad (05/01/2013) [-]
blacks were allowed to serve in WW2. Plus why are you complaining for 150 years white men died and and consequently black men didn't.
User avatar #58 to #40 - roninneko (05/01/2013) [-]
They weren't allowed to serve in combat roles for the first few years. They could only be cooks or aides.
User avatar #49 to #40 - ronyx (05/01/2013) [-]
******* have died as well as crackers.
#1 - unclemagic (04/30/2013) [-]
A thumb for u sir.
User avatar #20 to #1 - niggerlips (05/01/2013) [-]
now jr you ask dr. seuess why he didn't want to eat the green eggs and ham
#47 to #20 - theRomaniantroll (05/01/2013) [-]
Dr. Seuss had a few good quotes too besides green eggs and ham.
User avatar #19 - frienderman (05/01/2013) [-]
Everyone has the right and the ability to do whatever they want to. You could run outside right now and kill someone for no reason; that is your right. However, other people could also exercise their right to imprison or kill you in retaliation, and therefore we do not. Everyone has the right to do whatever they can, but to exercise that right is often far from wise.
User avatar #66 to #19 - Ruspanic ONLINE (05/01/2013) [-]
No. Rights are not the same as abilities. Rights are defined by impermissiblility of violating them. Your rights end where the rights of others begin, and because that applies to everyone equally, that also protects your own rights.
Of course, it's only really protection if it's enforced, and that's what government is for.
User avatar #24 to #19 - tosho (05/01/2013) [-]
You dont have the "right" to kill anyone. You have the ability and ability alone.
#41 to #19 - sacrilegious (05/01/2013) [-]
Everyone has the right to do whatever they want to?

I hope I don't live near you.
#62 - anon (05/01/2013) [-]
Now George Carlin fan boys will come out and act as if every single thing George said is the absolute truth.
User avatar #56 - fuckyoulolwut (05/01/2013) [-]
I agree with this quote.
I will be moving into the woods now.
#16 - anon (05/01/2013) [-]
Ehh, this quote was taken after he got all paranoid and preachy. I liked his earlier years when he could subtly rip on his government without going into full rant mode.
#82 - anon (12/21/2014) [-]
arin hanson is a narcissistic piece of ****
User avatar #65 - Ruspanic ONLINE (05/01/2013) [-]
While cynical, this should not actually be taken as a good explanation of rights.
(Natural) rights are still rights even if they are violated or repressed - they just become violated or repressed rights. "Privileges" implies that the government grants us rights, that they are merely things the government allows us to do. Which is dangerous thinking at least, if it's not simply untrue. That would make all governments inherently totalitarian in their power, differing only in the amount of freedom they choose to "allow" their citizens. As if it's their choice to make.
The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, doesn't actually give people rights, except a few legal rights like the right to a speedy and public trial. It establishes protections for existing "natural rights", either from government (i.e. Congress shall make no law...) or from other people (i.e. outlawing slavery). These rights exist without government and the government must and usually does acknowledge their existence.

We have legally recognized natural rights that are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, as the 9th Amendment says. For instance, the right to privacy: there's nothing there that actually says we have a right to privacy, but the amendments against unreasonable search and seizure and against self-incrimination show that the government recognizes this right.

tl;dr this is cynicism, not to be take literally
#64 - Ruspanic has deleted their comment [-]
#46 - jacklane (05/01/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #39 - dapape (05/01/2013) [-]
**** this country.
 Friends (0)