<Begin Segment 7>

FC: Resisters as... speak to the question of resisters as examples to the young, or what they mean to your history.

[Interruption]

RS: I believe the analogy I have about the stand the resisters took and what it meant to my generation, let's say the Sanseis and some of the Yonseis, is that they took an unpopular stand on moral and civil rights, constitutional principles, took it in their own community, which is the hardest thing for, sometimes, for minorities and people of color to do, is to take a stand in your own community, especially Japanese Americans. And they had the courage to do that in that time, just as a lot of young people in the '70s resisted the Vietnam War. I have a brother who went to Canada and cut himself off from our family rather than go kill another Asian. And that was a direct result of what happened to my parents, that he made his decision. So that's where I say it's a badge of honor and courage, that they did not follow all the people unnecessarily like sheep, they chose a path that was less popular, much more difficult, and much more lonely to travel, but they did it with courage and with conviction. And to this day, they deserve an apology, as well as recognition for their stand.

FC: What, what happened to them in the community when they did resist? What was the consequences for them?

RS: Well, the first thing was they had to deal with their parents. And like even my father did not quite understand why my brother left to go to Canada and not fight. And he said, you know, "Randy, we never had any black sheep in our family, and I know Alan isn't one. Why did he go?" He was drunk, he was having a drink with me at my sister's wedding. I said, "Dad," -- 'cause Niseis often didn't talk to their sons, right? We know about Japanese American Nisei men and Sansei men and all this, but anyway, we had a conversation. And I said, "Dad, I want you to understand something. What Alan did was the most courageous thing. It was the hardest thing for him to do, it took more guts to do what he did, to go there and not kill another Asian person behind a war that he felt was wrong." And it took so much courage to walk that path alone, without a bunch of people around him. And that's what happened. They were disaffected, they had to deal with their parents first, who had felt ashamed of their son's decision, and then you had others who were very, I call them very patriotic Americans, that I know that were in the airborne, paratroopers, who were on the other side, you see. And somewhere in the middle, what they forgot was that there is this thing called character, principle, and courage. And to stand up and to live that is a measure of any man or woman, that's the measure of their strength, their dignity and their intelligence as far as I'm concerned. It often isn't necessarily even the issue. It may be the stand you take, you know what I'm saying? And the integrity with which you take that stand. And that's what I was looking at. On that, in that sense, there was a continuum that the Military Intelligence Service, 442nd vets were standing on, as well as on the other side here, along this continuum, the dissenters, the war resisters, people equally as courageous, standing up for human values. And it made sense to me; I guess it didn't to the organization.

[Interruption]

FC: The, how did the JACL react to the resisters during the war and after?

RS: I think the saddest, the saddest thing that I can think of is the fact that they went after, purposefully, not only just, not only ostracizing the resisters, but going out of their way to make life miserable, and to paint this distorted picture of them as traitors. Character assassination is another way to put it. But I think what they did worse than that was they destroyed the spirits of some very, very proud people, righteously so. And I think when you go after somebody and you haunt them and harangue them like a pack of wolves, you take away something from your own humanity in the process. And perhaps that's the worst side of JACL that I've seen, is this inability to have that extra step to be compassionate at times. And they become so severe in their overreaction, it kind of reminds me partly of some cultural traits of Japanese from Japan, as well as the psychology of the oppressed, and those people who understand psychology of minorities, sometimes we, we go after people that are more courageous and are willing to say things we're not, because it disturbs us. And so we're gonna, we're gonna put 'em up and sacrifice them. There was this strange thing that goes on in JACL, that somehow this organization that should be the most compassionate organization for people who are dealing with civil and human struggles, trying to stand up for what they believe in, that this organization could turn around and be so vicious against those who don't agree, lock, stock and barrel, with this, this overall philosophy or program or whatever it is they happen to be running down at the time, that if you don't agree, somehow you're an outsider. And I do think that that's a problem in the psyche of Japanese Americans. I do believe that it's there.

FC: Does the size of the minority have anything to do with the JACL's ability to be the leader, have been the leader for so long?

RS: Yeah, I think so. I think 'cause we were always known as the largest, if not the second-oldest Asian American civil rights organization, that did carry clout. But at the same time, often it's not, the size doesn't matter, but if you can bang the pots loudly, sometimes you don't need as many people to make it sound like you've got a lot with you. So in that sense, I think we could be doing a much better job in terms of advocacy, because it does have, it has established some clout in circles in Washington, D.C., etcetera. And the declining membership controversy, which people argue about, that's only a function of JACL's inability to reach out to the next generation. So...

<End Segment 7> - Copyright © 1996, 2005 Frank Abe and Densho. All Rights Reserved.