<Begin Segment 22>

AI: Because you've done some writing on this and because our time is limited, I'm going to make a jump in time now...

BH: Yeah.

AI: ...to 1944. And during, all this time, you have continued your column in the Pacific Citizen. And in one of your columns, you, you pointed out the hypocrisy of the United States in World War II, fighting for freedom on the one hand and yet at home, incarcerating Japanese Americans. And duri-, in the summer of 1944, Governor Earl Warren of California gave a keynote address at the Republican National Convention. You, you were noting that he paid homage to the Constitution as the "guiding star," he so-called, of the United States, and that he went on to say that quote, "There shall be one law for all men," end quote. And in your column, shortly before the Fourth of July that year, you basically blasted his hypocrisy, Warren's hypocrisy...

BH: Yeah. Yeah.

AI: And you wrote, "We condemn the irresponsible, selfish, and expedient policy like that taken by Earl Warren toward the Japanese American issue. If he or anyone else can be so callous about one small unpopular point of principle, it is logical enough to assume that he would choose the expedient out in larger issues." And given that powerful leaders and political leaders were so willing to disregard the Constitution at that time, what did you think would be an effective way for Japanese Americans to protect their constitutional rights, if any? What -- did you think there was any way for Japanese Americans?

BH: Well, under the circumstances, all we could do was protest our love of country, our patriotism. And military service was one way to do that. And another way would be to retort in our piping little way, our protest against that kind of hypocrisy. Now, the Pacific Citizen had what? Circulation of 15,000 or so at that time, and it was just a little pipsqu-, pipsqueak. But at the same time, the press was free, and I felt an obligation to say what I thought I would -- I should say.

AI: Also in 1944, there came the refusal of some Japanese American men to be drafted. And this became very controversial, and of course, as we all know, at the Heart Mountain camp, there was the largest organized...

BH: Yes.

AI: ...resistance to the draft.

BH: Yes.

AI: Recently in, in a 1999 interview with Frank and Joanne Iritani, you said, "I respect the fact that they felt it was their moral obligation to oppose the government, so long as the government was oppressing them. But what they don't realize is that by taking the position they did, they were endangering the position of the hundred thousand Japanese Americans who were being looked upon with great suspicion. And they have given the government and the anti-Japanese people in this country a great opportunity to say, 'All of you are disloyal.'"

I was wondering if you could expand on that and explain what you meant about, by saying that the resisters were endangering the hundred thousand Japanese Americans. And if you could be more specific about what consequences you feared.

BH: All of us were under suspicion. That's why they put us in prison. The best way, the only way, to prove that we were Americans, loyal Americans, anxious to be Americans, anxious to serve, was to serve. I recognize the right of individuals to follow their consciences. And if this group in Heart Mountain would say "no-no" and insist that they would not serve, that was their individual right. But at the same time, I felt that that sort of action would lead to the kind of publicity, which our enemies could use to say, "See? We told you. These Japs are disloyal. They would sabotage the U.S. government. They hate the United States. And we ought to get rid of the whole damn bunch of them." I felt that they were endangering the, the futures of the rest of us, while at the same time, I recognize and respect their right to follow their own consciences.

AI: So even though a number of those men, on their questionnaires actually answered "yes-yes," at the same time, they were resisting the draft on a principle of, which was to insist that their constitutional rights be clarified...

BH: Yeah.

AI: ...and their citizenship be clarified. So while you respect that position...

BH: Yeah.

AI: ...you had a greater fear that even that being a principled position could lead to some practical consequences that could be very negative.

BH: Yes. Correct. I'm not sure that some of them had said "yes-yes" and then resisted the Selective Service Act. I don't know that that's true. I, I do know that some of them said, "Yes, if my family's allowed to go back to California," or wherever.

AI: Well, continuing just a bit on this, at the end of your book, Out of the Frying Pan, you, you comment on the dangers of presentism.

BH: Yes.

AI: The problem of applying today's standards, present-day standards to actions in the past. And could you say a bit about how you see that applicable in this case of the, the draft resisters of World War II?

BH: Well, there's been a lot, very bitter stuff said by both sides, the "no-no" people and mostly the veterans. I think that many of them are judging what happened sixty, seventy years ago by today's standards. And that's, I think that's what I was referring to in this matter of presentism. You have to understand the situation that existed many decades ago. And it's unfair to stand back from the position of seventy years of difference in time and say, "Hey, these guys were wrong," or "These guys were right," by present standards. These standards were -- situation was different at that time.

AI: One more item that came about in 1944, and that was that the United States Supreme Court cases...

BH: Yes.

AI: ...were heard, and of course, the Supreme Court ruled against...

BH: Yes.

AI: ...Hirabayashi, Korematsu, Yasui. And, when you heard that news, were you surprised? What was your reaction?

BH: I was disappointed and outraged.

AI: But were you surprised?

BH: I don't know. I don't recall whether I was just surprised, surprised or just angry.

AI: You thought that the United States Supreme Court should have ruled the other way?

BH: Yes. Absolutely. The minority briefs and, I forget the man I've quoted often --

AI: Justice Murphy?

BH: Murphy was one of them. They made a very eloquent condemnation of the, of the evacuation. Phrases like, "This precedent will stand like a loaded gun pointed at the American people," and things like that.

<End Segment 22> - Copyright © 2001 Densho. All Rights Reserved.