May 2000
Dear friends:
At the Nikkei 2000 conference in San Francisco this past weekend, the JA youth and student representatives highlighted what they felt were the most critical issues facing the future of the JA community. They selected as the most important issue the need to reevaluate and reexamine JA history. Orthodox interpretations of the JA experience, they maintained, have become disjointed relative to today's issues and values. The traditionally emphasized (and now outdated) themes of passivity and acquiescence must make room for histories that speak to contemporary concerns. Among other things, the representatives specified the history of resistance, the history of relations with other ethnic groups, and the history of interracial marriages as topics for further research. In reassessing JA history, the hope is that an inclusive historical narrative--one which embraces multiple perspectives--will emerge and that, as a result, JA youths will once again feel emotionally and intellectually connected to the JA community at large.
We write to you to pose the first challenge in helping us take control of our own past. The issue is relatively straightforward. On November 9, 2000, a national memorial commemorating the struggles of Japanese Americans will be dedicated in our nation's capital, Washington DC. The National Japanese American Memorial Foundation (NJAMF), the body organized to create this memorial, through closed procedures, has selected a most controversial quotation to be inscribed on it and a heated debate has ensued. The quotation in question is taken from Mike Masaoka's "Japanese American Creed," a blindly patriotic oath that fans the model minority myth. We have enclosed a copy of Mike Masaoka's testimony before a Congressional committee in 1942. In it, you will find a copy of the Creed. Please read it in its entirety. Masaoka, as national secretary and field executive of the JACL, was one of the main spokespersons for the JA community during the tumultuous World War II years. If you glace through the transcript, it is interesting to note the lengths to which Masaoka was willing to go to accommodate the government. As an organization deciding matters of public import, we believe that the NJAMF had an ethical obligation to consult and inform the general public about the relevant issues surrounding this quotation.
In addition to objecting to the procedure by which this quote was approved, we also object to the use of any portion of the Creed itself. Among other things, the Creed shows Masaoka's willingness to negate his ethnic identity and his lack of commitment to civil rights. Any effort to sanitize the Creed would simply obfuscate its true message and mislead the public as to Masaoka's true stance. In knowing what the Creed really stands for, we believe that inscribing any portion of it upon such an important structure enshrines passivity as a JA ethos. What an embarrassment for future JAs who will have to live with this inscription on their community's memorial.
As Senator Inouye stated at the Nikkei 2000 conference, in response to a question regarding the JA draft resisters of conscience (they used the issue of military service to call into question the constitutionality of the evacuation): courage and patriotism can be displayed in many ways. Standing up for constitutional principles, he suggested, is just as courageous and patriotic as taking up arms in defense of this country. We agree with this statement. For far too long, dissenting voices have been written out of the mainstream history of the JA community. It is time for the JA community as a whole to come to terms with the reality of its own past. This memorial, as a 21st century structure dedicated to our people, must not toe the oversimplified, orthodox line. We believe that it should transcend old rivalries and embrace the diversity of our past.
Some will argue that Masaoka's position was a function of the era in which he lived, suggesting that an accommodationist stance was inevitable. As a standard against which to contrast Masaoka's Creed and testimony, we have also enclosed the testimony of James Omura, a former journalist from San Francisco, before the same Congressional committee on the same day. The contrast between Masaoka and Omura is striking. Whereas Masaoka accommodated the government, Omura stood up for JA civil rights. James Omura's words resonate with us. Since JACL-affiliated Nisei have been largely responsible for constructing the orthodox history of the JA community, anti-JACL individuals such as Omura have been written out of the narrative. (Take, for example, Bill Hosokawa's NISEI: THE QUIET AMERICANS and JACL: IN QUEST OF JUSTICE. In both, Hosokawa summarizes the hearings of the Congressional committee before which Masaoka and Omura testified--Omura is omitted in both accounts.) Omura's perspective is important because it represents an instance of active resistance to the evacuation, grounded in a commitment to civil liberties.
Also enclosed is a copy of a resolution that, after some reflection, we hope you will sign and circulate. It is an objection to the selection of Masaoka's Creed as an inscription on the memorial since it, in espousing the orthodox line, fails to fully capture the diversity of the JA community. It is also a symbolic objection to the closed procedures used to select Masaoka's quotation. No input was ever solicited from members of the younger generations. Do they not care how younger JAs feel about this memorial? We also encourage you to circulate this resolution amongst non-JAs. We have been successful in attaining the signatures of persons from myriad ethnic backgrounds. In addition to other Asian Americans, who clearly have an interest in the manner in which JAs will be portrayed in this national memorial, talk with other non-Asian Americans. They, too, will be affected by this inscription. How will a quote, which carves into stone the model minority myth, be used to foment racial antagonisms?
To those who oppose monolithic representations of ethnic communities and who value procedural fairness, we ask for your support.
History is not a static, objectively existing artifact that one simply uncovers. It is dynamic and living. Every generation writes history relative to its present. If our own history remains outdated and if it continues to fractionalize us, we believe that the JA community will cease to exist. We believe that the Creed is antiquated and divisive and that it was impolitic for the NJAMF to select it without soliciting public input. We hope that you will join us in this cause.
Yours truly,
Stanford University Nikkei
|