Historical precedents have taught communities to be wary about unsolicited offers of help from the government. From a sociological perspective, history reveals that such offers of help are most detrimental to the minority. The Japanese relocation to camps during the Second World War and the Indian Removal into Reservations in the 19 th century are significant examples of government offers of help that harmed minorities (Bowes, 2016; Nagata, Kim & Wu, 2019). In the two cases, the governments use the paternalistic excuse that the actions were to some extent beneficial to the minorities. Further, these actions pushed the two sets of minorities to abandon their culture in order to fit in with the dominant culture of white Americans. The captivity of the Japanese forced them to abandon their homes and economic activities, which bankrupted them. Decades later, the federal government would provide them with a uniform compensation that was not representative of their losses. Such compensation should be a guide for the need to recompense African American families (Obuah, 2016). This research paper takes a sociological evaluation of the history of paternalism and coerced acculturation in America in an effort to show its detriment to the affected communities.
Paternalism and Coerced Acculturation in Japanese Relocation camps and Indian Reservations
The Japanese relocation camps and the Indian reservations had similar philosophies but different processes and outcomes. The Japanese relocation only took place over a limited period of time, between 1942 and 1946 (Rosemblatt & Benmergui, 2018). However, the Indian removal into reservation started over two centuries ago and to some extent, it remains in effect in many parts of the USA. Another major difference is that the Indians got reserved lands to settle in but the Japanese lost their property in exchange for government-run concentration camps. A key similarity in the two cases was the role of paternalism in the process. In the Japanese case, the government took the paternalistic approach of protecting members of the Japanese community from attacks and retaliation from other Americans, due to the Pearl Harbor attacks (Rosemblatt & Benmergui, 2018). Government agencies argued that the Japanese would be safer in the camps, in the event of a protracted war between Japan and the USA. The government made a similar argument for Indians by stating that reservations provided Indians with a safe place for them to practice their way of life. Based on the argument, since the Indians did not wish to abide by the dictates of civilization envisaged by the US government, the reservations would limit conflict between the Indians and white Americans (Bowes, 2016). In both cases, the paternalistic excuses were hypocritical. In the case of the Japanese, the relocation resulted from a combination of fear and hatred for the Japanese due to the Pearl Harbor attacks (Nagata, Kim & Wu, 2019). Similarly, the government mainly pushed for Indian removal to avail lands for white American settlers (Bowes, 2016). The two cases also have similarities regarding coerced acculturation. Both the Indians and the Japanese lost their property and livelihoods during relocations.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The reservations and camps also presented a poor quality of love for the Indians and Japanese respectively, as compared to their lives before the relocation. Making their cultural heritage a source of loss and suffering contributed to the acculturation of both Indians and the Japanese. To avoid such negative implications in the future, these minority groups gravitated towards adopting the cultures of white Americans as a means of survival (Nagata, Kim & Wu, 2019). However, coerced acculturation affected the Indians more and for longer, than it did for the Japanese. At the end of the Second World War, Japan became an important US ally, a fact that mitigated the appearance of Japanese culture as a threat to Americans. However, for centuries, many Indians faced the choice of either abandoning their culture or remaining in reservations, a fact that amounted to continuous coerced acculturation (Bowes, 2016).
Economic Impact of Japanese Relocation Camps on Japanese Americans
The relocation of Japanese Americans into camps had extreme economic ramifications. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that led America to declare war on Japan was unexpected. Within days of the attack and declaration of war, government agencies had already commended moving the Japanese into internment camps. Tens of thousands of Japanese also faced arbitrary arrests and imprisonment.
Fig. 1 (Varner, 2019)
Many of these Japanese communities had invested in practical economic activities such as farming, crafts, and trade, which required their direct input on a daily basis. At the advent of the relocation process, Japanese Americans got a notice of between seven and ten days to put their affairs in order and be ready for relocation. The picture above shows a shop owned by a Japanese American on the left and one owned by a Chinese American on the right. The Japanese were trying to sell everything in time for the relocation which resulted in huge losses (Varner, 2019). Japanese American farmers sold their farms at losses or tried to lease it out. Some Japanese had planted orchards and cash crops while others kept livestock including cattle and horses. They had to sell these animals at a loss or leave them with friends or neighbors whom they could seldom trust. They would eventually lose most of their property to vandalism and theft.
Compensation for Japanese Losses
Between 1946 when Japanese relocation ended and the current times, the US government has sought to make some token forms of compensation for the economic losses occasioned by the relocation. In this context, the term token refers to the fact that the compensation was neither fair nor commensurate to the economic losses incurred. The economic devastation upon the Japanese American communities was evident after they came from relocation in 1946. After two years of advocacy, the government enacted the Japanese American Evacuation Claims Act of 1948. Under the act, the US government would compensate every Japanese for losses incurred as a direct consequence of the relocation (Varner, 2019). Such losses mainly covered stolen or vandalized property but not selling property at throwaway prices. Further, authorities placed the bar of proof so high that there was no substantive compensation. For example, claimants had to provide receipts as proof of ownership for any personal property loss. Due to the vagaries of relocation, such evidence was mainly unavailable. Most Japanese Americans have to commence building their lives afresh from an economic perspective, having lost almost everything through the relocation.
Over four decades later, under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, the federal government provides compensation to the tune of US$ 20,000 for every relocated Japanese. The compensation resulted in the disbursement of over US$1.6 billion to the families of relocated victims (Varner, 2019). Whereas the compensation was substantive financially, it took so long after the economic losses to have a positive impact. However, from a sociological perspective, the monetary compensation accompanied by an admission of wrongdoing by the government is a positive move. Accompanying an apology with over a billion dollars in compensation is an admission of the paternalism associated with the relocation (Obuah, 2016). Such a move could provide psychological healing for a community as it reflects that what happened in the past no longer represents the community’s social status in society.
Japanese Compensation as Precedent for African American Repatriation for Slavery
The provisions of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 provide a foundation for the compensation of African American families of former slaves. Two important aspects of the said Act are relevant to the case of slavery and African Americans. For a start, the compensation to the Japanese Americans came so late that it could not have a direct impact on the loss that the government is compensating for. Forty years is too long to assist individuals to recover from the loss of their businesses and farms. Many of those economically affected by the relocation had either died or found a way to get by long before 1988 (Rosemblatt & Benmergui, 2018). However, the 1988 compensation still had an impact as it confirms that the relocation was wrong, should not have happened and should not happen again. Slavery was wrong, hence the need for compensation. Secondly, the compensation under the 1988 act did not include a quantification of the loss incurred during the relocation. Among the hindrances for the compensation of African American slaves is an inability to quantify and make good the losses. However, unlike the 1940 relocation that happened in the course of 4 years, slavery place in the course of centuries. Further, the impact of slavery was exponentially greater than that of reallocation as it included kidnapping, human trafficking, murder, rape, and persecution (Obuah, 2016). Compensation for slavery should thus be on a larger scale than that for relocation.
Conclusion
American Indians, Japanese Americans, and African Americans are examples of government perpetrated acts of paternalism and coerced acculturation in America. For the American Indians, the process of coerced acculturation is still ongoing as Indian reserves still exist. Amongst all three communities, the dominant cultural group, white Americans through a belief on their cultural superiority sought to compel the minorities to abandon their respective cultures. The focus population in this research paper, Japanese Americans, faced racial profiling before and after the relocation of between 1942 and 1946. However, during the relocation, the Second World War created an excuse for institutionalizing racial profiling through relocation and internment. The Japanese American community underwent monumental economic losses due to the internment. Four decades later, the government not only apologized for the cultural infractions but also provided compensation for the same. The compensation was not commensurate to the losses but it was a step in the right direction. Perhaps the government should also make the same positive gesture for other persecuted minorities such as descendants of former slaves.
References
Bowes, J. P. (2016). Land too good for Indians: Northern Indian removal (Vol. 13). Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press.
Nagata, D. K., Kim, J. H., & Wu, K. (2019). The Japanese American wartime incarceration: Examining the scope of racial trauma. American Psychologist , 74 (1), 36.
Obuah, E. E. (2016). The Politics of Reparations: The Academic Epistemic Communities and the Implications of Reparation Debate on African-American and Africa’s Quest for Reparations. Journal of Pan African Studies , 9 (5), 35-50.
Rosemblatt, K. A., & Benmergui, L. D. (2018). Japanese‐American confinement and scientific democracy: Colonialism, social engineering, and government administration. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences , 54 (2), 117-139.
Varner, N. (2019). Sold, Damaged, Stolen, Gone: Japanese American Property Loss During WWII. Retrieved from https://densho.org/sold-damaged-stolen-gone-japanese-american-property-loss-wwii/
