Reddit Reddit reviews In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror

We found 19 Reddit comments about In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

History
Books
Military History
World War II History
In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror
Terrorism
Check price on Amazon

19 Reddit comments about In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror:

u/PrincessCanada · 42 pointsr/ChapoTrapHouse

Don't forget that she'd include a comment about how the she thinks the internment of Japanese Americans in World War 2 was totally justified, an opinion that she literally wrote a book about.

u/frikativ54 · 38 pointsr/atheism

Michelle Malkin wrote "In Defense of Internment" -

http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Internment-Round-Up-Americas-Terror/dp/0895260514

I don't think we should take anyone like that seriously. In the interview, she wasn't even following her own pledge of ignoring Atheists.

u/looose-shoes · 28 pointsr/politics

> conservative personality Michelle Malkin

Just a reminder that Michelle Malkin became famous by using her Japanese heritage to advocate for the internment of Muslim Americans after 9/11

https://www.amazon.com/Defense-Internment-Racial-Profiling-Terror/dp/0895260514

u/chumian · 18 pointsr/AsianMasculinity

She also wrote a book titled [In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror] (http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Internment-Racial-Profiling-Terror/dp/0895260514/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1449718002&sr=8-7&keywords=michelle+malkin) in 2004. Here is the description of the book on Amazon:

Everything you've been taught about the World War II "internment camps" in America is wrong:

They were not created primarily because of racism or wartime hysteria
They did not target only those of Japanese descent
They were not Nazi-style death camps

I see what you guys meant by the term "mental colonized".

u/PopePaulFarmer · 18 pointsr/asianamerican

Did a bit of searching and, as it turns out, this is far from an isolated, one-off position by the Republican Party platform. Michelle Malkin wrote an entire book on it! See here

Fred Korematsu's rebuttal

Eric Muller's rebuttal, in a nutshell, much more substantive

u/JeddakofThark · 15 pointsr/esist

This trend went pretty mainstream among conservatives ten or fifteen years ago.

Nixon went from pariah to great president who made a single mistake.

Vietnam went from a bad idea and a huge clusterfuck to a just and righteous war that the damn democrats deliberately sabotaged.

Japanese internment during wwii went from a horrible injustice to a perfectly reasonable precaution. Michelle Malkin even wrote a book about it in 2004.

And I'm sure there are lots of other examples I'm forgetting.

The Trumpkins didn't start all this, but it's unsurprising that they'd latch on to it. Particularly Nixon.

u/RentalCanoe · 4 pointsr/politics

Didn't Malkin also write a book dedicated to the idea that government can lock up a whole group of people simply based on their ethnicity? Yes she did.

u/AstrangerR · 4 pointsr/EnoughTrumpSpam

To be fair, shamefully enough there are some who do think it was ok.

u/tootie · 3 pointsr/reddit.com

That is great. Her guest didn't let her get away with being nuts. Too bad he didn't study up on her history. She is warning about the dangers of Holocaust denial when she wrote a book defending the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII: http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Internment-Racial-Profiling-Terror/dp/0895260514

u/heavypettingzoos · 3 pointsr/badhistory

Had no idea this exists. A conservative, Asian! commentator making a defense of Japanese internment during WWII and racial profiling for the war on terror.

From what I can gather, historians didn't take too well to it considering it sounds as though she gets some basic chronology wrong (she works under the assumption Japan ruled most of the Pacific ergo attack on homeland imminent ergo internment is justified while in reality the internment didn't begin until after the Battle of Midway where the Japanese navy was dealt a pretty defining blow in the Pacific).

But yeah, i can try getting away with the argument that a few bad apples (or a rival nation) justifies removing the civil liberties of an entire ethnicity.

Has anyone read this book?

u/He11razor · 2 pointsr/politics
u/iamjacksua · 2 pointsr/pics

I wish I was as optimistic as you, one-half. Published July 1, 2004: In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go look at some pictures of cats.

u/[deleted] · 1 pointr/Judaism

>I'm refusing to address it because it's a totally subjective view which is rooted in opinion. I could just as easily say that it was all about exploiting the Middle East solely for their oil. Trying to peg these objective facts with subjective interpretations is pointless because we clearly disagree

I won't pursue this point any further, but we went the realm of subjectivity a long time ago.

>I understand, thank you for specifying this. The reason I'm concerned with imams encouraging Sharia law is because of the current state of affairs from within the religion in regards to Islamism and the literal practices of Sharia occurring in the Middle East today, which involve archaic practices not accepted in Western society. The big difference I see is that practices such as stoning women or killing gays (also seen in the Halacha) is that these aspects of Sharia are literally happening today

Sharia is a complex and multifaceted thing. While it includes the criminal system you cite it also includes interpersonal ethics, how and when to worship, rules of ritual purity, etc.- all practices that are both individual and tied inexplicably to the religion, and which could hardly be labeled 'archaic' unless you would label other personal practices archaic- which is a framework we would have to unpack anyhow.

So while troubling criminal justice practices may be happening today, these are not what is included in the Sharia in the west- rather personal piety and interpersonal ethics. In fact, many say following Sharia means following the laws of the land, including the Madkhalee Salafis, who are literal fundamentalists.

>I think, especially in Western nations, that young muslims who find themselves more devoted to their religion are more prone to radicalism due to the current state of affairs within the ideological movements which, I stress, are growing. Pair that with its occurrence within the largest group of people in the world, and it becomes a bit concerning.

The paper you cited doesn't really lend itself to this, and like I said before it is in fact a stretch, given that the terrorists we have seen so far have not been typically devout but rather troubled individuals from the start.

>Flynn is a jackass, not going to defend him. Anyway, could you provide some links explaining what they do to "strip Muslims of their civil rights?"

Flynn may be a jackass, but he was a pivotal part of this movement, and served on ACT for America's advisory board.

Here is SPLC's file on ACT for America.

Here are others in the same sphere asking for internment camps.

And more internment talk.

Antisharia legislation also has wider reaching effects than people think.

>And limiting immigration from troubled regions doesn't count, because I consider that a reasonable avenue.

Remember it started out as an overall Muslim ban. And this ban will affect people's civil rights, because those folks have no way to petition like other Americans for their family's to enter and live with them. It also effects green card holders, who DO have constitutional protection.

>The cognitive opening, in my eyes, is the tendency to devote oneself more closely to a set of values within religious text above a devotion to the values encouraged by one's secular nation. With the prominence of jihadism in today's world, young and impressionable devout muslims are at-risk for such radicalization efforts.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1057610X.2015.1051375

This article is behind a paywall.

As for the 'tendency to devote' statement, I think this is a strange point: where does the government have the right to step in and say I have to have a certain set of values, other than obeying the laws? In a secular liberal nation with freedom of thought and religion this is an issue- can you say a liberal and a satanist have the same values? Can we even define those concretely? Not everyone agrees with the Founders of the USA, for example, but they still have full civil rights.

And this is also assuming that greater devotion to Islamic values will lead to jihadism because of what Islam is- which is another thing that really has to be proven here.

As for jihadism, even the abstract of the article says that this is a puzzle approach. Piety alone doesn't seem to lend to it via the article cited, but again it is behind a paywall.

>I don't necessarily believe that more piety is always the "gateway" to radicalization; however, I think it's an aspect that supports a closer identification with Islamic groups above one's secular national identity.

Well, I think this gets even murkier. So if they were being violent for a nationstate would this leave them free and clear? If their identity was American yet they were violent would this be different?

Your assumption is that secular identity and religious identity must have some sort of balance in order for violence not to occur. Maybe, but really what is Islamic identity versus Secular identity and what does it mean? Are they always necessarily competitive? Many Americans identify very strongly with both Christianity and the United States, even though many of those values conflict or can conflict.

Sure, secular identity may mean less violence, in that secular nation state, but does it really mean much when secular national identity tends to lead to wars, like, say- Iraq, Vietnam, etc?


u/lordshield900 · 1 pointr/forwardsfromgrandma

https://www.amazon.com/Defense-Internment-Racial-Profiling-Terror/dp/0895260514

She wrote this book and then complains that liberals see racism where there is none.

u/natched · 0 pointsr/ShitPoliticsSays

Hi! I admit that FDR effected internment of Japanese-Americans during WW2 and that that was a terrible thing for him and America to do.

I think most liberals are now of the opinion that that was a terrible thing - that's why they don't like people suggesting the same be done for Muslims.

If you are looking for a prominent current figure who has endorsed internment and defended it, you can find her on Fox News or read her book:

http://www.amazon.com/In-Defense-Internment-Racial-Profiling/dp/0895260514

u/gobills13 · 0 pointsr/The_Donald

https://www.amazon.com/Defense-Internment-Racial-Profiling-Terror/dp/0895260514

I haven't had a chance to read this yet but it looks very interesting

>Everything you've been taught about the World War II "internment camps" in America is wrong:
They were not created primarily because of racism or wartime hysteria
They did not target only those of Japanese descent
They were not Nazi-style death camps...

>In Defense of Internment shows that the detention of enemy aliens, and the mass evacuation and relocation of ethnic Japanese from the West Coast were not the result of irrational hatred or conspiratorial bigotry. This document-packed book highlights the vast amount of intelligence, including top-secret "MAGIC" messages, which revealed the Japanese espionage threat on the West Coast.
Malkin also tells the truth about:
who resided in enemy alien internment camps (nearly half were of European ancestry)
what the West Coast relocation centers were really like (tens of thousands of ethnic Japanese were allowed to leave; hundreds voluntarily chose to move in)
why the $1.65 billion federal reparations law for Japanese internees and evacuees was a bipartisan disaster
how both Japanese American and Arab/Muslim American leaders have united to undermine America's safety