The Evil Genius Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 What do you guys think about this? Is it an issue or no? Seems like he chose the wrong medium to express his thoughts - or at least - he did it poorly. I am sure that some (if not most) of you will have no problem with his comments. That said, I think he chose poorly to air them. Poltical suicide in our day and age. I didnt remember a reperations bill signed by Reagan in 1988 - but I was only 13 then :laugh: N.C. Congressman OK With Internment Camps Wed Feb 5,11:08 PM ET Add U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo! HIGH POINT, N.C. - A congressman who heads a homeland security subcommittee said on a radio call-in program that he agreed with the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Rep. Howard Coble (news, bio, voting record), R-N.C., made the remark Tuesday on WKZL-FM when a caller suggested Arabs in the United States should be confined. Another congressman who was interned as a child criticized Coble for the comment, as did advocacy groups. Coble, chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, said he didn't agree with the caller but did agree with President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who established the internment camps. "We were at war. They (Japanese-Americans) were an endangered species," Coble said. "For many of these Japanese-Americans, it wasn't safe for them to be on the street." Like most Arab-Americans today, Coble said, most Japanese-Americans during World War II were not America's enemies. Still, Coble said, Roosevelt had to consider the nation's security. "Some probably were intent on doing harm to us," he said, "just as some of these Arab-Americans are probably intent on doing harm to us." Rep. Mike Honda, D-Calif., a Japanese-American who spent his early childhood with his family in an internment camp during World War II, said he spoke with Coble on Wednesday to learn more about his views. "I'm disappointed that he really doesn't understand the impact of what he said," Honda said. "With his leadership position in Congress, that kind of lack of understanding can lead people down the wrong path." The Japanese American Citizens League asked Coble to apologize and said he should be removed from his committee chairmanship. "We are flabbergasted that a man who supports racial profiling and ethnic scapegoating" chairs the subcommittee, the group's national executive director, John Tateishi, said in a statement Wednesday. The Council on American-Islamic Relations demanded that Coble explain his remarks. Spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said the comments were "particularly disturbing." In 1988, President Reagan signed a bill authorizing reparations of $20,000 for each surviving camp veteran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 putting aside the internment issue...is this a great country or what? you can't propose anything without offending some group and unleashing the dogs of correctness!!!! it's amazing anything gets done at all without two lawyers sitting in the middle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 I'd like to inter John Edwards, but thats just me Coble is an EXTREMELY popular congressman so this won't hurt him. He speaks 'off the cuff' and is a good 'ol boy, so I'm sure he probably hadn't given the issue much thought until the question was asked. Not a very politically savvy response though, thats for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Dogs of correctness? Internment camps based on nothing but a person's ethnicity are ok? No one here is amazed or upset by this? Sometimes I wonder if this is a football message board or the Michigan Militia message board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Sometimes I wonder if this is a football message board or the Michigan Militia message board. No, it's the "Tailgate" section of the football board chucklehead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 read the post....I said "putting aside the internment issue" meaning that was not what I was speaking to............the larger point stands...you can't raise any issue (pro, con, undecided) any longer without some offended party hackling and lawyers climbing in the middle...that's a fact jack! our overly sensitive society is worth laughing at from time to time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 6, 2003 Author Share Posted February 6, 2003 Of course, one could say that the lack of sensitivity in the past is worth regretting too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Stupid move. At a time when our law enforcement and national security people are trying to get the confidence of the arab and islamic communities in the United States so that they will help identify terrorist cells, you don't want some A-hole in government - chairing a national security subcommittee no less! - commenting on how rounding up Arabs is a good idea! This has nothing to do with PC for me. It's just irresponsible in the extreme. Unfreaking real! :shootinth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Redman has it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just skins baby Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 I think you really have to look back at the era when this came about. We were at war with the Japanese. I don't think there were too many groups out there that were really vocal about causes such as there are today. Sitting here today in 2003 and looking back, they thought they were doing the right thing. People back then weren't worried whose feelings they hurt, they were trying to move through the depression and make a living for their families and FDR was the man they believed in and trusted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Originally posted by The Evil Genius That said, I think he chose poorly to air them. Poltical suicide in our day and age. Perhaps for a younger man, but Howard Coble has been around only a little less time than Strom Thurmond. Though not a very smart comment, I'd be willing to bet this doesn't raise a big ruckus.I used to rent a room in an old townhouse two doors down from Howard Coble. He drove an aging Chevy Cavalier. Not what you would expect from a fairly high-profile local politician. I have to wonder, though, if we ever found ourselves at odds with, say ... Ireland, how people would act if we discussed rounding up those of Irish descent and locking them away to feel safer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 TEG........much of what you post is actually pretty funny.......but lecturing us on sensivity when you have bombarded us in the past with billboard photos that some might find offensive is hardly convincing grounds. and that's the problem with all this sensitivity nonsense - it's great in theory but it's immensely subjective, pre-emptively throttles free speech, and attempts to judge intentions as well as impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 What is even remotely wrong with this statement? Cobble said he didn't agree with the caller regarding the premise of Arab internment, but, he did, as a teen-age boy at the time, agree with the Democratic President and his stated policy. Now, I know TEG wrote, "Of course, one could say that the lack of sensitivity in the past is worth regretting too." This, of course, is the banner of the guilty white liberal. Let us stand together and weep about the lack of sensitivity in the past. Sheesh, it's this kind of thing that worries me about people. Cobble said he agreed with what the Democratic President Roosevelt did and that he doesn't agree with any similar actions in today's America. This is classic as to how individual beliefs may change over time. If we're really going to be "upset" with any person stating that as a boy he believed in what the President told him, we're going to have an awfully odd future. America is a changing society. Punishing a man for saying he does not think internment camps are appropriate today for Arabs, but that he did support his Democratic President at the time he did what he did can't really be considered all that terrible can it? I don't know, and this article doesn't display, the context of how he said what he said. It doesn't read or state or display either way that he said, or meant, or intended to say what the U.S. did to the Japanese in WWII, as initiated by a Democratic President, was right for all time. He did say, or seem to say, according to the phrasing of the article, that he agreed with Roosevelt which tends to display a time frame we're talking about. I think every one of us knows we're not about to see internment camps today for Arabs. I think Cobble said he didn't find that possibility as anything he'd agree with. But, actually getting one bit huffy that a citizen would dare to have believed what his President did at a time was right, smacks of the guilty white liberal continuing to put what he would do today in place of what an era and time may have done before we changed. But, as is the normal thing here, this article states clearly that Cobble didn't agree with the thought of rounding up Arabs in a way we did the Japanese. And even a good right-leaning person has avoided those words and as Redman framed them, "Stupid move. At a time when our law enforcement and national security people are trying to get the confidence of the arab and islamic communities in the United States so that they will help identify terrorist cells, you don't want some A-hole in government - chairing a national security subcommittee no less! - commenting on how rounding up Arabs is a good idea!" This will now snowball even though the fact is the express opposite was stated. And no one seems to care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Art, you make a good point and for the most part I agree with it. Older people who lived during earlier eras when things were different should be given the benefit of the doubt for having changed their thinking as times and attitudes have changed. However, it seems to me that Coble is simply being very crafty in his choice of words....in fact, one might even call him "Clintonesque" "We were at war. They (Japanese-Americans) were an endangered species," Coble said. "For many of these Japanese-Americans, it wasn't safe for them to be on the street." Like most Arab-Americans today, Coble said, most Japanese-Americans during World War II were not America's enemies. Still, Coble said, Roosevelt had to consider the nation's security. "Some probably were intent on doing harm to us," he said, "just as some of these Arab-Americans are probably intent on doing harm to us." If you read between the lines it appears to me the he's cleverly implying that perhaps this policy should be re-visited while giving himself the "opt out" that you described. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Actually, Yusuf, it reads to me to be fairly straightforward. He supported what the President said were the reasons for the internment camps, which was, to protect the Japanese -- among other things, obviously. That said, certainly it was reasonable to assume some Japanese did want to harm us, just as it's reasonable to assume some Arabs may. But, in saying he didn't agree with interning Arabs today, as the article expresses, he simply drew a similarity -- and one does exist -- between Arabs today and Japanese during WWII. He supported, as a boy, the President at the time and despite the similarities of today, he doesn't support, according to the article, interning Arabs today. But, even if he was being highly crafty, great. Craft is good with words. If you can intimate something without saying it, then you're skilled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Originally posted by Art What is even remotely wrong with this statement? Cobble said he didn't agree with the caller regarding the premise of Arab internment, but, he did, as a teen-age boy at the time, agree with the Democratic President and his stated policy. * * * Cobble said he agreed with what the Democratic President Roosevelt did and that he doesn't agree with any similar actions in today's America. This is classic as to how individual beliefs may change over time. If we're really going to be "upset" with any person stating that as a boy he believed in what the President told him, we're going to have an awfully odd future. America is a changing society. Punishing a man for saying he does not think internment camps are appropriate today for Arabs, but that he did support his Democratic President at the time he did what he did can't really be considered all that terrible can it? I don't know, and this article doesn't display, the context of how he said what he said. It doesn't read or state or display either way that he said, or meant, or intended to say what the U.S. did to the Japanese in WWII, as initiated by a Democratic President, was right for all time. He did say, or seem to say, according to the phrasing of the article, that he agreed with Roosevelt which tends to display a time frame we're talking about. I think every one of us knows we're not about to see internment camps today for Arabs. I think Cobble said he didn't find that possibility as anything he'd agree with. But, actually getting one bit huffy that a citizen would dare to have believed what his President did at a time was right, smacks of the guilty white liberal continuing to put what he would do today in place of what an era and time may have done before we changed. But, as is the normal thing here, this article states clearly that Cobble didn't agree with the thought of rounding up Arabs in a way we did the Japanese. . . . Art, As you know by now, I'm no defender of PC, and I'm not a lefty. I've cut your explanation above (limited to your comments on Cobble, as opposed to other posters' reactions) to point out that while Cobble's comments took only seconds to make, as most epithets and accusations do, your refutation of them (which certainly carries some merit) took six paragraphs to articulate. Even if your comments are absolutely dead nuts on, the fact is that the country doesn't need this kind of debate going on, prompted by careless, off-the-cuff comments by its leaders that would require such a long-winded defense - however meritorious it is - when our focus should be on staying unified and working against common enemies. That's my point and the basis for my criticism of Cobble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 putting aside the internment issue Originally posted by fansince62 putting aside the internment issue...is this a great country or what? you can't propose anything without offending some group and unleashing the dogs of correctness!!!! it's amazing anything gets done at all without two lawyers sitting in the middle! I think that too many words carry emotional loads. So if you choose your words carefully, you can get people to support the stupid things (like internment but use a different word) or reject great things. Conversely, if you fail in your word choice (or choose to use the wrong words at times), you can achieve the reverse of what you want (and could get sued). putting aside the internment issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 OPM....point taken.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 62, I saw someelses response to your post after I made mine, so I went back and edited in a way that I hope it can't be misread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.