Skip to main content

Another Racist Construction of Government: From Concentration Camps to Heritage Months

In 1942, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, enabling the forcible incarceration of 120,000 Japanese-Americans solely on the basis of their race, effectively circumventing due process and suspending their Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights to favor political expediency. 

In the wake of the December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor, public envy of the economic success of Asian immigrants collided with popular contempt for everything resembling the Empire of Japan. 

For four years, the lives of many were unalterably ruined and thousands perished across at least ten camps from Camp Upton in New York to Manzanar and Tulelake in California. 



During this time, an estimated value of $10 billion (in 2018 dollars) of lost property and income was accrued and tens of thousands of Americans were deprived of their Constitutional right to due process and their right to appeal, while political righteousness was palatably pursued by men and women adorned in the latest fashions, whose daily indulgences would scarcely encounter the despicable consequences of an executive order which appeared to them only as palpable as the dried ink they read on venerated sheets of paper. 

Ironically, though, the democratic heirs to the throne deem fit the occasion to appoint a whole month to celebrate the general demographic of persons whose eyes take that same squinty, slanted form. 

The unquestioning public, as if wholly absent or completely ignorant of this history, willingly accepts and embraces this occasion, unwittingly bowing down to the very despotic regime which remains prepared to pummel them on moment’s notice, should circumstances change. 

It appears evident here more than anywhere that government has committed a great disservice by way of inconsistency and hypocrisy, failing routinely and predictably the freedoms of the individual and the integrity of demographic groups. 

Years removed from the sin of systemic racial discrimination, the new pundits within that same Leviathan stand ready to declare themselves, once again, the leaders of high moral and ethical thought, miraculously washing away the tears and bloodshed of their offices’ past transgressions, trailblazing the primrose path to intercultural nirvana. 

I, for one, am not buying it. 

Just as the federal government reserved no right to encroach upon the lives of Japanese-Americans in 1942, that institution bears no business in indulging itself in their affairs in 2018, just because it has become the fashionable thing to do today. 

Of course, this fashionability rests squarely on the employability of said demographic for purposes of the political front, on the campaign trail, and at the ballot box. 

These seemingly innocuous and laudable initiatives perniciously pull at heartstrings and lull unsuspecting observers into the trap of accepting government’s role in these matters and evaluating bureaucrats on their likability instead of on the basis of logical coherence. 

These small steps eventually stretch many miles into vast frontiers far removed from the original intents of government, affording a voice to authority where it was never even imagined upon inception, and admitting a sort of Trojan Horse within the social arena of morality. 

This occasion, then, forms the appropriate opportunity for all persons to contest those smallest of margins and those very inches of government influence. 

This implores the layman to stand up and declare the government irrelevant to affairs both moral and ethical, as its record of ambivalence renders it wholly unreliable, at best, and widely diabolical, at worst. 

I, for one, require no such government to prompt me to celebrate culture. 

I am happily engaged to a beautiful and inspiring woman of Filipino descent. 

I love her not merely for her slanted eyed, her luscious brown hair, her fascinating dialect, or her gorgeous complexion, but rather for the unconditional love, the profound and incomparable connection, and the joyous and enthralling moments we share together. 

Candidly, I wish we could all be so fortunate. 

Once we begin to patiently evaluate other people as individuals, with the benefit of extirpating government, its dispensable boondoggles and questionable motives, we can finally fully appreciate life on our own terms, unadulterated and unencumbered by the cold and weighty chains of agenda-setting politicians and implacable bureaucracies. 

We can give ourselves a snowball’s chance at overcoming our own biases and unfounded misconceptions without the constant and threatening onslaught of divisive commentary which serves only to violently tear us apart, to distract us from these more pressing points, and to vilify still other groups based on the same incomplete criteria.

If we can get this far, we can finally emerge as free human beings, represented by, as Martin Luther King proclaimed in his 1963 speech in Washington, the content of our character, not by the color of our skin. 

We can finally be free.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes