• DragonTypeWyvern
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      When they say “with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous” they do that by actually removing the people from the region instead of forcing them into camps in the region and then letting them out again.

      That and, you know, mass murder.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ah right, they totally planned to let them out again. They never bothered to tell them that, but…

        • DragonTypeWyvern
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          They did, actually.

          But so did the Nazis.

          The Japanese internments were interesting, in a historical perspective, in that the idea to imprison Japanese Americans was broadly popular but the genocidal aspects normally associated with the similar practices were never discussed, at least at a policy level.

          There were no disposal or relocation plans drawn up (that I’m aware of anyways, feel free to source otherwise), FDR’s administration literally just said “throw all the Japs in prison until we’ve won, it’ll be good for the polls!”

          Which is honestly pretty weird, because they called them “relocation camps” at the time but seemed to mean it as “we’re relocating you to this camp.”

        • Dkcecil91@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Dude, the US was grown out of the blood of the people who were already living in whatever place they wanted to be at the time. Every president has done something horrible to people who were just trying to live their lives. Kennedy did an exceptional amount for the average worker despite that and if other presidents had followed in his footsteps, we would probably have a more egalitarian society today. Being a hard edged absolutist and unable to see in shades of gray and take into account the prejudices and circumstamces of the time period does not make you correct. Especially as all of your posts (apart from quickly googling a definition) have been very low effort and provided no candidate for who you would say is better, even though the other poster asked you for one several posts ago. Try being constructive instead of destructive, if you even know how.