Japanese American Internment: Causes, Losses, and Legacy
This paper examines the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, tracing the chain of events from the attack on Pearl Harbor to Executive Order 9066, which resulted in the forced relocation of 120,000 people into ten camps. The paper analyzes who benefited economically from the policy, the property and opportunity losses suffered by internees, and the long-term social disruption that complicated reintegration. It also evaluates the adequacy of restitution measures — the 1948 property reimbursement law and the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 — arguing that both fell far short of remedying the generational harm caused by internment. The paper concludes by drawing parallels to contemporary political rhetoric targeting ethnic and religious minorities.
- Introduction: Pearl Harbor and Executive Order 9066: Origins and scope of Japanese American internment
- Economic Beneficiaries of the Internment Policy: Farmers and laborers who gained from relocation
- Property Loss and Insufficient Restitution: Assets confiscated and reimbursement laws that fell short
- Social Disruption and the Challenge of Reintegration: Mistrust and generational setbacks for Japanese Americans
- Legacy, Political Failure, and What Should Have Been Done: Inadequate remedies and echoes in modern politics
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper traces a clear cause-and-effect chain — from Pearl Harbor to the executive order to long-term economic and social consequences — giving the argument coherent momentum.
- It balances multiple dimensions of the policy's impact: who suffered, who benefited, and what remedies were attempted, providing a well-rounded analytical framework.
- The conclusion connects a historical injustice to contemporary policy debates, demonstrating the ongoing relevance of the topic without overstating the comparison.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper uses a cost-benefit analytical lens to evaluate a historical policy, systematically identifying winners and losers and then critically assessing whether corrective measures were adequate. This approach — examining policy outcomes rather than just intentions — is a useful model for historical and social-science writing at the undergraduate level.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with historical context and the scope of the internment, then moves through economic beneficiaries, property and economic losses, social reintegration challenges, and finally a normative critique of the restitution measures taken. Each section builds on the previous one, moving from description to analysis to evaluation, which is a classic and effective essay structure.
Introduction: Pearl Harbor and Executive Order 9066
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the subsequent declaration of war by the United States against Japan set in motion a chain of events that would lead to the internment of people of Japanese origin living in the United States. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, directing all Japanese Americans to evacuate the West Coast just two months after the bombing. The result was that 120,000 people were interned in ten camps across the country (History.com, 2017). The order was driven by the widespread belief that Japanese Americans and immigrants were plotting to aid Japan in the conflict. There was no evidence of such a plot, nor of any sentiment to sabotage the war effort. The relocation and internment was not applied to people of Japanese origin living in Hawaiʻi, nor to people of German or Italian origin — citizens of nations the United States was also fighting in the conflict (History.com, 2017).
Economic Beneficiaries of the Internment Policy
Among the beneficiaries of the internment were farmers and fishers of non-Japanese descent. Many farmers actively lobbied for the relocation of Japanese Americans. The removal of so many Japanese Americans reduced competition for the remaining farmers, fishers, and laborers, giving them a significant economic advantage. In many cases, farms, businesses, and other property were confiscated from Japanese Americans or simply seized after people were removed. As a result, a substantial number of people became economic beneficiaries of the policy, gaining assets and market share at the direct expense of the internees.
Property Loss and Insufficient Restitution
The order set back Japanese Americans in several important ways. First and most immediately, they lost their property. In 1948, a law was passed allowing for some reimbursement for property losses, but the amount was insufficient to account for the full economic disruption, and it was not enough to restore Japanese Americans to their prior socioeconomic position. There was also deep disruption to Japanese American communities that created further obstacles to economic reintegration. Meanwhile, those who had seized Japanese American property were permitted to continue using those assets. Having already seen economic gains during the war years, their continued use of these assets after the war placed them on a much stronger financial footing — directly at the expense of the former internees.
The Civil Liberties Act of 1988 provided limited reimbursement — $20,000 for each surviving person who had been interned — but that amount was nowhere near sufficient to account for lost property, lost economic opportunity, or the broader consequences of being removed from American economic life for several years, including the difficulties that persisted long after the internment officially ended.
References
Frail, T. (2017). The injustice of Japanese-American internment camps resonates strongly to this day. Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved October 15, 2017, from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/injustice-japanese-americans-internment-camps-resonates-strongly-180961422/
History.com. (2017). Japanese-American relocation. Retrieved October 15, 2017, from http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/japanese-american-relocation
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.