<Begin Segment 26>

TI: So from the Nisei Vets perspective, so the Nisei Vets were those who either volunteered or were drafted into the 442 or MIS and served. And so what was their, as a group, their feelings towards, in this case people like the Heart Mountain resisters? People who actually said "yes-yes" but then resisted the draft and were then sent to prison.

FF: Yeah, well, as I indicated, we... the local Nisei Vets are really primarily from Minidoka and we had no knowledge of these guys from Heart Mountain. This only came up really, probably after that whole business, that whole controversy between us and the JACL regarding resolution seven. But I think really, most of the vets, I can't -- I haven't taken any poll of the vets or anything like that -- but most of the vets that I talked to, they feel like... yeah, I mean, what's wrong with the Heart Mountain guys taking the position that they did? They have no problem with that. They have a problem with, the problem... Minidoka had some "no-no" guys who eventually were draft resisters, and these guys, they didn't just say, "I don't want anymore part of the U.S.," these guys went further than that. They said, "I don't want any part of the U.S. I want to go to Japan. Not only do I want to go to Japan, I want Japan to win the war. And I want... and if possible, I'd like to join the Japanese military and fight against the U.S." Now, I think really, I personally -- I can't speak for the vets -- I personally think that it would have been very reasonable at that time, to say, "No, I don't want any part of the military because of the way I've been treated." But I think they've gone a little bit too far when they said, "I don't like the way I've been treated so I want out." I think it's one thing to redress your grievances within the system, it's another thing to say, "The hell with the system." If you say, "The hell with the system," I think you ought to leave.

TI: So that was part of when, when the JACL resolution came to thank and apologize to this group, that was, it's really this group that you just mentioned, was the one that you felt that it was inappropriate to do something like this?

FF: Yeah, because that's, that's really the only group with which the NVC is, is aware. They aren't from other camps where other circumstances occurred. I think, like I mentioned, I think, you know, the, most of the "no-no" replies were really for reasons other than loyalty. They were for reasons of self-preservation, for family preservation and things like that, which I think really are probably very reasonable. But I really... having said that, I don't think that's really any reason to thank them or to cite them for some meritorious act or something. I think it was far more meritorious for the guys who knew they had families, and they went out and fought for the U.S. and died.

TI: Were the feelings pretty strong for the ones who served both in Europe and Japan? I mean, as this was all happening in the camps, were they aware of what was going on?

FF: Oh, that's a... I'm glad you brought that up because that's another point I think really escapes people. When... like I told you, when the "no-no," when the loyalty oath situation occurred and these guys answered "no-no," at that time I mentioned that some guys that volunteered for the service were still on very good terms with the people that were "no-nos." But the thing that really struck these guys in the service was that they had just -- when the 442 had just come off of their initial baptism of fire on the Hill 140 or something like this, and they had come down and then they were burying their dead and licking their wounds -- and cripes, I mean, they looked forward to getting their mail. And in this mail was these statements, it was in the Minidoka Irrigator, it was statements from these guys saying, "I don't want any more of the U.S. and I want to fight for Japan." And the emotional impact of that to those guys, under those circumstances, can be expected to be far different from some Sansei looking at it forty years later and looking at it with a very objective eye and saying, hey. But even that, that isn't our problem with the resolution seven though. Resolution seven, the allegations are all incorrect. The resolution states that, that these guys should have been thanked for being "no-nos." Well, I already mentioned some categories of "no-nos" and no way do they deserve thanks. But I don't think, on the other hand, I don't think all the "no-nos" deserve condemnation. You just can't lump all the "no-nos" together into one resolution, without having some logical inconsistencies. And the other thing is that it's claimed, it's alleged in the resolution that the "no-nos" were harassed by JACL.

TI: By JACL, or by NVC?

FF: That's the point I was saying, stuck in our craw. Because in the resolution they say, "The actions of JACL." And yet in the newspapers, they mentioned not one thing the JACL did, they mentioned really that the NVC has been harassing these guys for all these years. And so, to me it seems like they got beyond their initial terms of reference. They're talking about us, not them themselves. And so... but even with that aside, I think, really, and like I told you, the Nisei Vets never harassed a "no-no boy." They're on good terms with "no-no boys," okay. It was only after their -- they made statements, anti-, well, unpatriotic statements associated with their draft resistance. And so... I think the other thing is that the claim that people harassed the "no-no boys" is totally incorrect. There was no example of that in Minidoka. And I mean, having been the mouthpiece for the NVC on this whole issue, I was determined... I didn't want to be out in left field here someplace. So I looked into the literature to see what was happening in other camps and there is no camp in which really the JACL harassed the "no-no boys," it was totally the other way around. The "no-no" elements were hell bent and determined that the registration would not succeed. And so they really harassed and threatened people that were, that seemed like they were inclined to cooperate with the administration or worse than that, to sign "yes-yes." So I think that's totally incorrect. Now, I don't really see why JACL would want be, go on record as really supporting a resolution in which the allegations are totally incorrect.

<End Segment 26> - Copyright © 1997 Densho. All Rights Reserved.