American Concentration Camps

This review was written in 2010, but this story about another concentration camp reminded me of the film, so I decided to post it here. 

I watched Passing Poston at the Brooklyn Public Library at 1:30 on a Sunday afternoon. The audience was small, about 25 people, including some people who were friends of the directors who were there to give a post-screening Q&A session, along with Dr. Gary Okihiro. About half of the audience was Asian or Asian American, and the rest of the people appeared to be white or Black.

The film raised several interesting points by interspersing recent interviews with former concentration camp residents, archival footage, and footage from the Indian reservation that was the site of the Poston Concentration Camp. The former residents of the camp had very different ways of reacting to their imprisonment: one woman was inspired by her experiences to produce visual art; another found her faith; and the only Japanese-American man in the film concluded that his Americaness was conditional. The representatives of the reservation where the camp had been situated saw the continuity of the disempowerment of minority groups by the U.S. government and although they did not speak about their individual responses, spoke of the benefits the Indians on the reservation gained as a result of camp residents’ work.

As the subject of concentration camps inevitably brings up comparisons with the more notoriously well-known Nazi camps employed during the Holocaust, I wondered why there were so few films about American concentration camps. I contemplated the disparity between the ubiquitousness of the Holocaust in Americans’ collective consciousness in contrast to the relative obscurity of American’s imprisonment of Japanese-Americans. I asked myself why the audience for a documentary like this was so small, yet films and lectures about the Holocaust I have attended had much larger audiences despite being in less accessible venues like the CUNY Graduate Center compared to the Brooklyn Public Library.

I asked the panel after the screening why this was the case, and offered the guess that Americans were reluctant to counter the myth of the benevolent U.S. government and of the infallibility of ‘Greatest Generation’ while the Nazis were iconic representatives of pure evil in American popular imagination. Director Joe Fox responded with the answer about a similar experience he has had getting the film distributed. He theorized that distributors assumed that the audience would be a small niche of Japanese Americans. Professor Okihiro forwarded that scholars have generally framed study of the era as an anomaly in American history and an interesting case of Constitutional law rather than as crime against humanity. This response led me to conclude that the publicity surrounding the concentration camps needs to be repackaged for it to enter into the American lexicon and become a touchstone just as the terms “Holocaust”, “Nazi”, “Jim Crow”, and “September 11th” have.

Trailer

As the subject of concentration camps inevitably brings up comparisons with the more notoriously well-known Nazi camps employed during the Holocaust, I wondered why there were so few films on this subject. I contemplated the disparity between the ubiquitousness of the Holocaust in Americans’ collective unconsciousness in contrast to the relative obscurity of American’s imprisonment of Japanese-Americans. I asked myself why the audience for a documentary like this was so small yet films and lectures about the Holocaust I have attended had much larger audiences despite being in less accessible venues like the

While waiting to suggest this to Professor Okihiro, a man approached me to suggest that the reason the concentration camps have failed to capture the attention of the public was that Americans are just generally ignorant of history. He supported this idea by saying that many Americans who “watch American Idol and not people like you and me, educated, who watch PBS, and read” confuse the Korean and Vietnam Wars. I countered that while the public may not be able to distinguish between the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and the Pusan Perimeter, everyone knows the word for the Nazi genocide of the Jews; a lot even know two: the Holocaust and the Shoah. (Shoah is Hebrew for conflagration and Stephen Spielberg’s foundation to preserve personal histories of the Holocaust is named “the Shoah Foundation”.) The man replied, “Well, maybe in New York.”

Professor Okihiro’s reply to my suggestion was that we should use the term 'concentration camp' rather than ;relocation center,' 'detention center,' or 'internment camp.' "Relocation" and "internment" were euphemisms meant to paint a more benign picture for the benefit of America and for the protection of Japanese-Americans against hostile non-Japanese Americans. A detention center is for prisoners or criminals. Since the idea was to collect and contain people, the most apt term is concentration camp, despite its current association with the Nazi camps which should more accurately be referred to as death camps. Clearly by this point in the review, it is obvious I have adopted this point of view.

Again and again, I am struck by the ruthlessness of American colonialism and its treatment of people that it subjects to its self-serving rules. Passing Poston clearly demonstrates once again that the government changes the rules at will, and calculates moves that justify conspiracy theorists' claims about the hidden motives behind seemingly valid or reasonable actions and explanations. While American Indians and US-born people of Japanese descent are both Americans, the government carefully executed an old plan, according to Professor Okihiro, to relocate West Coast Japanese, while simultaneously building up the infrastructure of the reservation in order to be able to later force other Indian tribes into the area. The colonization of Indian lands by Europeans is indisputable fact, but more Americans would dispute that the Japanese-Americans are colonized as well, since they migrated to the U.S. The parallel excuses, though, illustrate how similarly these two disparate groups threaten American interests and therefore were treated the same.

 “one day I went to bed American, and the next day I woke up an alien.”

The Bureau of Indian Affairs that has ruled over the reservations since the mid-nineteenth century also claimed that they were protecting the Indians, civilizing them, and assimilating them. The Japanese Americans were likewise assimilated and taught about American freedoms, protected, and contained on the same land as the Indians. It is often argued now that Roosevelt wanted to provoke war with the Japanese and further American interests in the Pacific. The very reason that there was a significant Japanese population on the west coast and Hawai’i is that American corporations needed labor. Again the government exploited that labor to fulfill its own needs and schemes. Between the similar stories presented to the public about why it was necessary to move and confine Americans of Indian and Japanese ancestry, a clear colonial relationship can be drawn. A further comparison between the similarities of experiences is captured up by the Japanese-American man who said that “one day I went to bed American, and the next day I woke up an alien.” He stated this in front of a mostly Indian and Latino audience on the reservation in Arizona that Poston was situated on. The audience applauded, easily identifying with it, according to James Nubile who related the story to us.

Passing Poston draws the lines connecting Japanese Americans and American Indians as disempowered groups unfairly treated and compelled by the government to be relocated. The story is nearly unknown and needs to be publicized so that Americans can move beyond the myth of a benevolent government and honorable history (with small anomalies that can be discounted as exceptions in a generally good and progressive path) to ensure that such an injustice never be repeated. This may require coining a different term or reclaiming "concentration camp." Since the USA PATRIOT Act was passed, and the detainment of thousands of innocents on suspicion of terrorism, it is critical to preventing the need for future apologies and reparations.

Food Sovereignty

Food Sovereignty Tours gave me the opportunity to learn about the agricultural and culinary history of Oaxaca from indigenous experts. Learning directly from a Zapotec professor, a local dairy farmer, and a community leader whose qualifications came solely from working the land, could never be equaled by reading book or in a classroom. Travel is education that should be accessible for everyone.

When I applied for the program, I was worried about the cost. It seemed so extravagant to spend so much on just two weeks. That was also two weeks and a day of work I had to give up, in addition to the tuition fee of the trip, and airfare from New York to Oaxaca. I decided to do it in lieu of a school program which would have also been in Mexico, and started fundraising. Part of the cost was covered by funds provided by the school where I’m studying public policy, and another portion was covered by Food First’s scholarship. It all worked out, and I got to spend one of my most memorable Christmases in the Sierra Norte in a temazcal.

My interest in Mexico comes from working with indigenous immigrants. Many students of the program where I work are from Oaxaca and neighboring Puebla. After visiting Mexico, I have a better understanding of the forces which have compelled so many to migrate from the south to the north. A big part of that story is that of the trade agreements between the US and Mexico, and the encroachment of the global business policies on food sovereignty.  It explains why some of these students whose mother tongues are Mixe, Mixteco, or Nahuatl are studying English as their third language as adults in New York City.

For me, one of the most profound points made during the trip was by the Zapotec professor of anthropology. He pointed out that organic food and GMOs are culturally important. The mainstream media never focuses this. Instead, they talk about environmental impact or nutrition, but these seem remote and abstract when we’re talking about daily survival. Sitting next to a lake in Benito Juarez’s hometown, and hearing how invasive strains of corn are endangering cultural practices, made the matter one of containing the attempt at cultural genocide that the people have been resisting for 500 years. He was able to link indigenous food sovereignty and cultural preservation because he is a part of that culture.

While there are many reasons that food sovereignty is an important issue, none have resonated with me as much. As an immigrant to the US, and as someone who is very sensitive to the value of lost language and culture since I lost both, Professor Ramos’ point made the entire trip and issue more relevant for me. If I hadn’t traveled to Mexico, I never would have heard this point. As a result, while continuing to work with indigenous immigrants, the fight for food sovereignty has become mine as well. It is a part of their struggle for empowerment and social justice both here in the US and in Mexico.

RE: Indigenous Immigrants

"Well, you all are certainly entitled to your opinions, but I disagree 100%.  It has everything to do with established immigration law in the United States and those who do not abide by it.  I understand your mindset, but this is 2010, and legal immigration needs to be enforced.  It's not just about Mexico, although they are the biggest offenders.  I think the US should follow Canada's model considering immigration.  

"I think we've allowed the Illegal Immigrants to take over our country and our system.  Why the hell do I have to press 1 now for English?  Consider how well you would fare if you decided to move to Mexico.  Believe me, they sure as hell would not learn English for you.  Or any other language aside from their own.  That is, if you managed not to get shot, or kidnapped, tortured and then brutally executed and dumped in a mass grave in the desert.  Sorry, but I do not agree with your words at all.  I really don't want that element to continue encroaching on our homeland." [Reply on Native Truth Chat list serve]

My response:

I teach English to adults. About 75% of them are from the Americas. So, they do realize that English is essentially important in this country. This is in NYC where I NEVER have to press 1 for English. I have to wait less than one second while there's a message that says "para espanol marque el dos". Two myths busted.

My students who come from the Americas, especially North America, either speak indigenous languages or are among the first or second generation to speak Spanish as their first language. They definitely have conformed to a foreign influx of immigrants and learned their language. Third myth busted.

New York City has the second highest number of Nahuatl speakers of any city, after Mexico City. Their families, up until NAFTA, lived as corn growers. Now, with subsidized U.S. corn flooding the market, they're literally starving. So, they moved from the rural country-side to Mexico City then here to NYC. To keep from dying. Yes, without legal authorization because the *legal* influx of corn and other neo-capitalist/neo-colonial practices has left them without any other choice.

As for crime, let's be real- it's the U.S. hunger for narcotics that fuels the trade and US anti-drug laws that makes them lucrative to sell. The ancient use of coca and marihuana, btw, wasn't a problem until 1) exploited by the enslaving colonial/white elites to subdue Indians and 2) distilled, modified, and used out of its traditional context when it passed from being used for ceremonial or pragmatic reasons to recreational for non-Natives.

My Guatemalan students are here for much of the same reasons that the Mexican students are here plus attest to the continued genocide going on there perpetuated by U.S. interests. I don't have roots in this country or continent. I was brought here by the international adoption industry (trade). That industry had, until 2 years ago, also imported tens of thousands of indigenous Mayan children to feed the market for babies. Doesn't adopting out indigenous children to white families who would raise them as white sound familiar to US Indians? "Kill the Indian, Save the Man"?

I would have preferred to stay in my native Korea, speaking Korean, but US policies, all "legal", has forced English into my mouth and me to this country. I now use the privilege that this affords me to help others gain some of that privilege, too, but I know neither I, nor the vast majority of students that I teach will ever have the same level of white privilege because white supremacist attitudes and white-washed non-white people who align themselves with this ideology.

As for Canada, their policies regarding First Nations are hardly a model to be held up as one to emulate or applaud. Their immigration policies are much broader than the U.S.' as a result it has the highest immigration rate in the world, with many unauthorized immigrants there as well. Myth 4? (I never heard the "Canada policy" argument before) busted. (Source: Wikipedia)

Actually Canada brings up an interesting case in the discussion of Native people. The Eskimo/Inuit culture spans 4 countries: Russia, U.S., Canada, and Greenland (Denmark). These political boundaries imposed by Europeans clearly demonstrate the arbitrariness of them and the disregard they have for indigenous people. The same happened in the lands that are now divided by the US/Mexico border.

Let's not get caught up in what legal and what's illegal. Slavery was legal. Segregation was legal. Marriage between a white person and a non-white person was illegal. Laws are not always just. It's still legal to take people's land if the government decides it wants to. It's legal to dump toxic waste. We could go on.

These laws, borders, rhetoric, and attitudes hurt people. Immigrants coming to the US without authorization or staying here after being issued a visa (the vast majority or "illegal" immigrants, btw) actually contributes to the economy and culture. (Source: Migration Policy Institute) I hope for a reform of US immigration policy that allows the free flow of people and labor so we can live in peace and with dignity. Our history and our mythology demand it. It's the only just thing to do. Even if it does spit in the face of white supremacy and colonialism. I hope that all non-white people come to realize that it's in our best interests rather than align ourselves with people who continue to exploit our ethnic differences for their benefit. Let's not play into the ethnic antagonism that has only helped to divide and conquer us since Columbus left Italy and immigrated to Spain.


BTW, as an advocate for immigrant rights and comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) I never use the term "illegal immigrant". The community and movement uses undocumented or unauthorized. And even worse than illegal immigrant is the term illegals. That completely dehumanizes us.

The status of a person as legal or illegal is completely a matter of arbitrary chance and circumstance. Let no "American" forget that.

Indigenous Immigrants

Every time we hear a white person say "Illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien" what they are actually doing is saying "NIGGER". The term nigger is a term created by white people to demean a person of color and to lower his/her natural and inherent status, so that certain rights can be stolen. The tactic of using false labels to demean, lower and steal rights from people of color is a tactic that has been used repeatedly by white people in America since 1492. 


For example, once Native Americans were labeled as savages it justified stealing our land and murdering tens of millions of natives and enslaving the rest. Once Black people were labeled as niggers and savages they lost their rights as humans and could be owned as slaves.


Today the people being referred to today as Illegal immigrants are actually Native Americans. By branding our people as illegal immigrants, in our own land, our status is lowered and our rights can be legally are taken. We never agreed to any European borders on our land. Yet we can be dictated to by white people regarding where we can and cannot be on our own continent.


We can be jailed for being in a part of our own homeland where white people are the majority. Is it merely an accident or coincident that today nearly everybody sees the use of the term "Illegal immigrant", in referring to brown Native Americans from below the illegal border, as acceptable. No, this has been intentionally manipulated by white people. Liberals, conservatives, black people, racists, immigrant rights activists, Native Americans, news reporters, the President and even the "Illegal immigrants" themselves now think it is acceptable and proper to refer to brown NativeAmericans as "Illegal immigrants".

Let's be very clear. The people being targeted by the term "Illegal immigrant" are Brown Native Americans. The people who have created and popularized the term "Illegal immigrant" are white people. They are white supremacists to be exact whose clear motive it is to maintain an apartheid system on Native American land. The majority of people in America are Native Americans with 600 million on our continent compared to 200 million white people. However, the border at the Rio Grande River is an apartheid border and artificially maintains a white majority area in our brown Native America.


When we think of Africa most people think of a continent of brown people. When we think of America most people think of mostly white people. This is an intentional manipulation and lie. America is and will always be a brown continent. Love it or Leave it!!

So think twice before using the term "Illegal immigrant". If you are a white person using this term then you are a white supremacist. If you are a person of color using this term then you are an uncle tom supporting white supremacy.

Barry

"It is the greatest con in the world when the natives have became the illegal immigrants and the illegal immigrants have become the natives"