Japanese-Americans in the West Coast Lived Peacefully

Japanese-Americans in the West Coast lived peacefully before President Roosevelt issued the Executive Order 9066 in February 1942 that condemned them to misery in internment camps in the deserts of California. Those who owned property had to sell them. Some had to give up their belongings. The Japanese-Americans could not wage any form of resistance because this would be suppressed by brute military force. Nobody would be foolhardy enough to contemplate that. The 20-year-olds were adversely affected despite the fact that some of them were later allowed to go to college, work in factories, and serve in the United States military. Life in the camps was heart-wrenching.

The young Japanese-Americans conscripted into the military had divided loyalty especially after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour. America was their country of birth and Japan was the country of their parents and ancestors. The anti-Japanese sentiments that were aired after the Pearl Harbour attack made it more difficult for the Japanese-American military conscripts. The American soldiers with whom they were to serve with probably considered themselves more American than them. This worsened the situation for them.

The Japanese-American soldiers wanted to prove their loyalty to the country they belonged to regardless of the fact that their parents had been snatched their property and condemned to remote camps in California desert. They decided to do this regardless of the fact that 'their' enemy spoke the same language they spoke, were similar to them, and shared in their customs and cultures. Serving in the army was indeed a difficult choice for young Japanese-Americans.

Case II

King's assertion, that President Johnson's desire to end poverty and provide economic opportunity for all Americans was shot down on the battlefields of Vietnam, was not entirely true. Any regime that that has no regards for human rights has to be treated with caution. The Communist China's influence in North Vietnam and North Vietnam desire to exert its totalitarian form of government on the South, that had a legitimate government, had to be checked. Kings subscribes to Christian ideals which advocates for freedom of all men.

North Vietnam definitely had no regards for the southerner's individual rights. It was therefore America's moral responsibility to protect the freedoms of the citizens of South Vietnam. As a matter of fact, America being a signatory of SEATO was obliged to defend any form of external attack on the organization members. Responding to treaty obligation did not in anyway make America a cruel manipulator of the poor. These two subjects are parallel and have no point of convergence. Were it not for Lyndon Johnson, some of the civil rights liberties currently enjoyed by the American citizenry would still be a mirage away.

Case III