“And finally, I can recognize condescension when it rears it ugly head.”
I’ll assume that comment was directed at my response to your posting. Do not confuse condescension with astonishment. Understand that I’m not concerned about your perceptions of condescension. I am interested in the specifics of your posting. Had I known you had been here since 2000, I would have been far more critical (your “bona fides” at the bottom your post indicate that you’ve been registered since 2009-01-02. I’ll take your word for it).
If you’re well educated on the Constitution and the rights of a US citizen, then perhaps you’ll forgive me for raising an eyebrow at your statement. I note that you’ve done nothing to justify, explain, or apologize your posting (any are acceptable). Again, a “slip on the keyboard” can and does happen to all of us. A rationalization for the violation of individual civil rights by the government is far more serious. Given that you are well educated on the Constitution, how do you rationalize your statement? I am truly interested in this apparent dichotomy.
May I also ask why you seem to be justifying FDR’s actions in this specific case? Why you feel FP #10 specifically justifies the actions against Japanese-American citizens (leaving German-Americans curiously exempt) would be interesting since you mentioned them. I realize you may indeed believe that it was ok to cart innocent citizens off to the plains of Colorado for the duration (and that’s ok if it truly is what you believe), but it’s equally apparent that it isn’t in accordance with anyone’s rights under the Constitution, which is a justifiable concern in the rather odd times in which we live.
No apologies. But a book recommendation: Butterfield’s “The Whig Interpretation of History,” which discusses the tendency of people (in this case, Victorians) to judge the actions and motives of those who came earlier (such as the Romans) by their contemporary (Victorian rather than Roman) standards. It elaborates on the practice of dividing historical figures and actions as the good ones, those who were on the side of truth (as we perceive it now) and the “evil” ones, those who acted before these truths as we now know them emerged. In our current situation, it would be to judge Lincoln’s motives and actions during the civil war by the standards of 21st century ACLU members.