Inferences of loyalty from ethnic background

[Myron Moskovitz]

I recall reading that Japanese-American soldiers were not sent to the
Pacific for a very simple reason: white American soldiers might mistake them
for enemy soldiers.  (Towards the very end of the Pacific war, however, some
Japanese-American soldiers were sent to the Pacific, mainly to act as
interpreters to interrogate captured enemy soldiers.)

Myron

-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for con law professors
[mailto:CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 10:48 AM
To: CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Inferences of loyalty from ethnic background


One of the many correct points made with regard to the loyalty of
Japanese-Americans during World War II is the fact that the so-called Nisei
regiment was, I believe, the most-decorated regiment during that war.  But
note well that the regiment did its fighting in Europe, not in the Pacific
theater.  I assume this was no coincidence.  So two questions follows:

a)  Should the Defense Department (which was then called the War
Department, of course) have been indifferent to which theater of war the
Regiment was assigned to?

b)  Does it demonstrate American racism that the Nisei regiment was (I am
presuming) selectively assigned to Europe while GIs of German and Italian
descent were (I am presuming) not selected out for assignment to the
Pacific theater?  (I assure you, incidentally, that this question is "for
real," and not rhetorical.  I assume that the War Department could have
(relatively easily) found out which soldiers had family in Germany and
could, therefore, have assigned them to the Pacific Theater.  The question
might have even more bearing with regard to assignment of bomber crews.  At
some level, wouldn't it be more "humane" (in some suitable, albeit
horrific, sense) to assign German-Americans to bomb Japan and
Japanese-Americans to bomb Germany?

sandy