Its sad how those camps arose out of the terrorism at pearl harbor.
So, I know this is off-topic for this thread, but you've badly misrepresented the history of WWII.
The surprise attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor in WWII is not and was never referred to as 'terrorism.' The exact definition is somewhat elusive, since very often these days governments and foolish people will use the label pejoratively for effect as a propaganda effort (remember Sarah Palin calling Obama's friendly fist-bump with his wife a "terrorist fist-bump?' whatever that means ....)
Honestly you are the first person I've encountered in my 43 years who refers to Pearl Harbor that way. There were no acts of terrorism involved, which is best defined as asymmetric tactics or warfare, tactics used by groups and individuals which have no formal military organization, nor who are formally associated with any government. These tactics are chosen purposely for their economy and shock value to draw as much attention as possible to themselves, usually to achieve political goals through fear and coercion, not as any kind of military strategy. Terrorists typically don't engage in military combat and tend to avoid engaging even in war zones, but instead attack civilians and highly visible non-military targets.
Terrorist groups and individuals are at most loosely organized fringe militias far outmatched by any modern army - this is one reason they resort to acts of terror and not direct bombing campaigns of a military base with planes (plus, they have no planes or bomb factories). Bombing raids on military bases is very much a conventional combat tactic used by every nation involved in WWII, Axis and Allied (btw, have you read about the US firebombing of Dresden, Germany, which burned nearly the entire city to the ground, all civilians, because Dresden had no military bases - I mean if Japan committed acts of terrorism in WWII, then so did the US and all the Allied and Axis nations). Japan was not known for terrorism as a strategy, but they would have no good reason to use it anyway. They were known for their Kamikaze pilots at the time, but that too was not terrorism and has never been referred to as such in any history book.
The attack on Pearl Harbor was a full-fledged military bombing raid and submarine attack on a military base, by an organized military representing a nation and wearing uniforms to designate who they are, none of which is characteristic of any terrorist organization. It was an act of war and has always been known historically as the Attack on Pearl Harbor, or the Battle of Pearl Harbor.
The internment of US citizens of Japanese origin during WWII was almost entirely motivated by racism, although it was a time of war and Japan attacked the US. Still, we didn't imprison Americans whose families originated in Germany during WWII, nor did we imprison Italian-Americans, and both those nations were at war with the US and were ruled by fascist governments.
/rant
So, edited to add so I don't post multiple messages ...
Im just saying that the terror felt by the country from the attack played a role in straining the relationship americans had with japanese americans as it did with muslims after 9/11. To be more specific it played a role in pushing the racism in america to a breaking point against japanese, which were treated similarly like blacks were treated at the time.
That's like saying, our racist actions were wrong, but they were asking for it.
Racism is an undercurrent of our culture and society and is depressingly common throughout the world, but victims of racism, like victims of abuse, are not responsible for acts committed against them. The internment of Japanese-Americans was reprehensible on its own terms, no excuses necessary. You seem to be making the case that Japan was responsible for the racism underlying the internment of Japanese-Americans, because they entered the war on the side of the Axis with a surprise attack on a US military base, which was horrifying for Americans, and this horror perpetrated by Japan on the US was what turned our country against its own citizens?
Should Japan have anticipated this reaction and perhaps rethought their bombing raid? How does that ethically tie together at all without blaming victims or turn into some weird ethical quandry where we look through the passage of time backwards and say that Japan should have known better than to mess with the US with its bigoted culture, because you'll just make them freak out and go full blown racist, and then if they do something racist it will be someone else's fault! The lesson being, before you act, you must take responsibility for the actions of other people and think of their dysfunction as something you can control if you're nice enough.
Does this mean that the US was responsible for the Holocaust, since we bombed Germany over and over and over during the war and killed many civilians and soldiers, destroying entire cities? Did the horror of all the numerous attacks on Germany by the Allies cause them to go over-the-top and exterminate millions of people? The US only suffered a single attack on its soil for the whole duration of the war, and they reacted by imprisoning millions of people who had similar ancestry and skin color, people who were citizens of the nation that was attacked. Surely more terror would result in more racism, right? The logic would seem to follow that way ...
You ever watch Laurel and Hardy? Great stuff, timeless. Oliver Hardy has a signature line which he says after he screws up in a spectacular way, or when he carelessly attacks and bullies his friend Stan Laurel: "Now look what
you made me do!"
