On the peaceful Sunday morning of December 7, 1941, Hawaii, the Imperial Japanese Navy launched an assault on Pearl Harbor, then, Japan and America fought to each other. But there is a question, how about the Japanese people who were living in America when Japan and America were at war?
In fact, they are interned or be putted in prison without charging them with a crime, but for national security reasons.
By the order of American President Franklin D. Roosevelt, all the people of Japanese ancestries who lived along the West Coast of United States and in the Washington D.C. along with more than 1000 Japanese who lived in Hawaii, totally about 110,000 people, are forced by American Government to leave their home and live in internment camps, regardless that more than half of them are American citizens. Many of the camps were in the dessert or rural areas. Some of the Japanese were shot to die. However, the internment ceased in 1944 and every internee got $25 and a bus ticket home. 40 years later, in 1988, President Reagan said sorry and paid money to these Japanese who suffered from the human rights violation.
Since even F.B.I and Mr. Roosevelt didn’t know the attack, it’s safe to say that few of these Japanese nobodies should take the responsibility for the attack on Pearl Harbor.
National security was used to justify human rights violations in Second Word War. Now, National security is still used to justify human rights violations in the name of War on Terror or whatever. We can see how vulnerable the human rights are, especially when national security is under threat.
The reason of that is very simple. It’s the nation who protects the human rights. In the worst situation, when the nation want protect it, we get protection; when the nation needs our human rights, it just takes them away.
But in my opinion the country and the people should trust each other. We should be tolerant toward some human rights issues. Meanwhile, the government should pay more thinking when it deals with national security problems. Besides, there should be effective ways of communication between the people and the government.
In conclution “Don't ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”
Or 神马都是浮云, 稳定压倒一切
It a good essay to analyze the relation between human right and country, but I think the statement ‘When the nation needs our human rights, it just takes them away’ is too subjective. And I don’t think the Chinese in the end is good.
ReplyDeleteI mean,"In the worst situation, when the nation want protect it, we get protection; when the nation needs our human rights, it just takes them away." What's more, I never talk over a particular country. The protection of human rights is enormously expensive, sometimes luxurious. I never doubt that China has done the best as she can. I hope you can read this sub-comment, Zu Tianqi.
ReplyDeleteMr YU CHEN,actually i think your topic is quite good. but first of all , you just misunderstook Zu Tianqi. the "chinese" he used refered to the chinese words you used in the last line.so you got his idea completely wrong. you better put it in the context and reunderstand it. second, should call you innocent or what？ you said"But in my opinion the country and the people should trust each other." but this matter has nothing to do with trust or not. it is matter of ways to prevent something like 9.11 event.when you say people ,there are millions of people in a country.no matter how civilised a country is,there are people who may threat the public security. so please do not simplify those real life issues into a problem irrelevant to realiy.
ReplyDeletesorry ,the last word is "reality".
ReplyDeletehaha actually i have no idea about what i should say ,because i can always see the steady development without terrors in our country. referring to the western countries , there are so many complicated factors that confuse me . however, when we talk about the human rights, i do not think we think relate it to the national security .
ReplyDeleteYes I misunderstood the sentence that "And I don’t think the Chinese in the end is good."
ReplyDeleteI apologize for that.
When the war happens, it is really a tragedy for all the human beings, human rights will definitely be violated. I don't have much experience in this issue but I really admire your courage to put forward your opinion,come on!
ReplyDeleteWhen war comes, human rights cannot be assured. Maybe if you really love your country, you should regard your country as the more important thing than your own human rights.
ReplyDeleteNational security has always been a serious matter even before 911. You have done a lot of research on Pearl Harbour and the internment of thousands of Japanese, FBI and USA. The issue appears simple: in times of war and national dissaster, human rights and personal freedom are usually curtailed for the good of the country.The question is by how much. Governments can use National Security to justify violation of human rights and freedom. Such is the example you cited of the ethnic Japanese in America during the war. The American had atoned for that later. Just as the British had to roll back draconian laws following the London undeground bombing. These two incidents illustrate the power of the democratic system of government where parliament and society can protect the rights and freedom of the people from a powerful government. They serve as a credible check on the government.
ReplyDelete