|
|
|
REVIEWS
VOICES RAISED IN PROTEST: DEFENDING NORTH AMERICAN CITIZENS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY, 1942–49
|
by Stephanie Bangarth
|
| University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver and Toronto, 2008. Illustrations, photographs, notes, bibliography, index. 296 pages. $85.00 cloth. $32.95 paper. |
| Despite striking parallels in the histories of Japanese Americans and Japanese Canadians, and in the policies used against them during World War II, comparative treatments of the subject are few. Stephanie Bangarth's Voices Raised in Protest takes an important step toward filling this gap by examining the American and Canadian opposition to wartime policies of removal, incarceration, and (in Canada) post-war deportation and expatriation. This carefully researched study convincingly demonstrates that, despite the similarities in policies, distinctive national discourses about rights led opposition groups to articulate their objections differently. |
1
|
|
Bangarth, a Canadian scholar, begins by laying out wartime policies restricting Japanese Americans and Canadians. Although both countries forced Nikkei from their homes in the West and into inland camps, Canada focused more emphatically on dispersal to the eastern provinces, with the aim of assimilation. In addition, while the American policy of exclusion was reversed toward the end of the war, Canada's program continued through the late 1940s, with a "repatriation" (actually expatriation) and deportation program as well as continued emphasis on resettlement in the East. Nikkei were not able to return to British Columbia until 1949. |
2
|
|
Having established the policies' parameters, Bangarth turns her attention to their opponents. Focusing first on the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Co-operative Committee on Japanese Canadians (CCJC), and, in subsequent chapters, on dissent among Nikkei and other supporters (including ethnic minorities and religious groups), Bangarth traces the development of opposition in both countries. Here, and in her discussion of the legal cases, she effectively highlights the national differences in the discourse of dissent. American opposition to wartime policies was grounded in the language of civil liberties, rooted in the Constitution. In Canada, opposition developed more slowly, peaking after the war's end and evolving from appeals to British liberties to a discourse of "human rights," based first on the Atlantic Charter and, later, on the Charter of the United Nations. This formulation of human rights in the immediate post-war years represented a significant contribution by the CCJC and other opponents of the Nikkei policy to later efforts to secure minority rights in Canada. |
3
|
|
While Bangarth contributes significantly to our understanding of these movements in a comparative context, her treatment of the ACLU is sometimes puzzling. Based on archival research, Bangarth demonstrates sharp divisions over the issue (not unlike Judy Kutulas's The American Civil Liberties Union and the Making of Modern Liberalism, University of North Carolina Press, 2006). This detailed discussion makes clear that the organization's national board quickly backed away from opposition to Executive Order (EO) 9066 and refused to sponsor several of the test cases challenging wartime restrictions. Yet, her framing of the ACLU as the principle group opposing the policy of removal and incarceration, and references to its opposition "from the beginning," imply a stronger, more consistent stance (p. 52). During her discussion of the responses of the American peace churches, for example, Bangarth claims that "they were relatively quiet" in the wake of EO 9066 because "the ACLU, as a long-established and well-known civil liberties group, was leading the charge in the political sphere" (p. 86). The confusing message about the ACLU's role also extends to Bangarth's discussion of the court cases. Early on, she notes that the ACLU "national board did not participate (in the test cases) until 1944, in Ex Parte Endo" (p. 59). Later, she writes "Hirabayashi, Korematsu, Endo, and Yasui became test cases, with the ACLU participating only in Hirabayashi and Korematsu" (p. 138). Clearer, more consistent distinction between the foot-dragging national ACLU and its West Coast affiliates, whose leaders were far less conflicted, would be helpful. |
4
|
|
Given the focus on Canada's CCJC, an organization formed specifically to respond to the removal order, one wonders why Bangarth did not focus more on the Committee on National Security and Fair Play. Like the CCJC — but unlike the ACLU, an organization that had a much broader focus and was quite conflicted on the removal and incarceration issue — the California based Fair Play Committee dedicated itself to the Nikkei issue, testifying at Congressional hearings, orchestrating a public relations campaign, helping with resettlement issues, lobbying officials, and coordinating with allied groups. Despite its leadership on the issue and the parallels between it and the CCJC, Bangarth mentions the Fair Play Committee a scant three times. A more detailed examination of the Committee might also help illuminate the extent to which the civil liberties language of American dissenters was due to the ACLU's influence. |
5
|
|
Despite these issues, Bangarth's study makes several important contributions. Her comparative treatment of North American Nikkei policies will be valuable to students of both Canadian and American history. She is compelling in her argument that the different discourses of rights used by opponents of Nikkei policy in the two countries was significant and had a lasting impact on subsequent minority rights movements, especially in Canada. |
6
|
|
|
| ELLEN M. EISENBERG
|
| Salem, Oregon |
|
Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|