Average Americans would've opposed Japanese "anything" near Pearl Harbor in 1942

[CreekDog]

"Japanese-American internment was the forced relocation and internment by the United States government in 1942 of approximately 110,000 Japanese Americans and Japanese residing along the Pacific coast of the United States to camps called "War Relocation Camps," in the wake of Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.<1><2> The internment of Japanese Americans was applied unequally throughout the United States. Japanese Americans residing on the West Coast of the United States were all interned, whereas in Hawaii, where more than 150,000 Japanese Americans composed nearly a third of that territory's population, 1,200<3> to 1,800 Japanese Americans were interned.<4> Of those interned, 62% were American citizens.<5><6>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

But worth noting is that the one place Japanese Americans were not interned wholesale was in Hawaii itself because they made up about a third of the State's population.

What to conclude?

Let's not use how we treated minorities in 1942 as the standard to follow for the Manhattan Mosque/Cultural Center.

[MichiganVote]

1. But I'll wager there is/was plenty of Made in Japan or China souvenirs nearby.

[T Wolf]

2. There is no need to go back over sixty years for a standard NOT TO FOLLOW. Amerika of 2010

has plenty of current examples of bigotry and hatred to live up/down to.

[Phx_Dem]

3. And most Americans opposed inter-racial marriage.

But that doesn't make it right.

I agree with you -- let's not let past biases guide our future.

[leveymg]

4. By this reasoning, it's now 1950. Very few would have opposed a Shinto shrine near Pearl Harbor

Nine years later, Japan is are now our strongest Asian allies against the USSR and Red China, and our forward base in the Korean War that just started. Americans will now go out of our way not to offend the Japanese.

There are, in fact, several Shinto shrines and a Buddhist temple on the Big Island near the naval base.

Someone needs to rethink their historical metaphors.

[besdayz]

5. inverse relationship

economy = 1/(bigotry)

[The Magistrate]

6. And Your Point, Sir, Is?

This 'nontroversy' is the most ridiculous thing to take the public stage since the pledge of allegiance 'issue' in '88.

Even those who decry the thing acknowledge the government has no right or means to halt it.

So what someone running for some ofice or another thnks of it is meaningless, just as what any ndividual who does not own the property in question thinks of it is meaningless.

The real significance of this nonesense is that it is an open admission by the Republicans that they cannot hope to prevail in the elections if the people are think of the ecopnomy and their own employment situation.

Any Republican who brings this up should not even be answered; he or she should immediately be assailed for running away from a record of economic misery and mis-management, and denounced for trying to change the subject from his or her enthusiastic working to make paupers of average working Americans.

[CreekDog]

7. Like it or not, Republicans can win on that message

they try to make unreasonable positions seem totally reasonable.

and sadly, lots of Democrats go along with that messaging.

but the Democrat that demolishes them with a "...have you no denency?" appeal to liberty is the one getting my respect.

[Posteritatis]

14. to where should I address the royalty cheques for the word 'nontroversy?'

Also, what was the pledge issue then? I was on the wrong side of the border and not quite mature enough to parse the outside world yet then.

[blueworld]

16. Someone wanted to remove "under God", I think n/t

[wndycty]

8. Islam/Muslims didn't attack the US Al Queda members who were Muslim did. . .

. . .false equivalency

[Cleobulus]

9. How is it false, Japanese-Americans weren't responsible for the actions of the Japanese...

government either.

[CreekDog]

10. It's only false equivalence if I argued that the Attack on Pearl Harbor is same as 9/11

which I did not do.

[DailyGrind51]

11. Haven't Americans matured some since then?

[frazzled]

12. Public sentiment is irrelevant

Constitutional rights and the law are the only yardstick we should be discussing with respect to either of these cases.

If you're arguing about electoral politics, then whatever: knock yourself out. But remember: it's been 9 full years since September 11. So put yourself in 1951: a Japanese cultural center on the Pacific Coast probably would have been a big yawn by then.

[CreekDog]

13. I was arguing NOT TO LISTEN to public sentiment

because obviously, it was folly.

[Gordan Shumway]

15. How about 1952?

The entire premise is idiotic. It's not months later, it's almost 10 years later, in an information age about a thousand times greater. False equivalency indeed.

Edit: Just read the post above that was similar to mine. I just don't understand the point of the OP, sorry if I'm rude.