<Begin Segment 1>

TI: So today is July 5, 2008, and we're in Denver at the Japanese American National Museum national conference. And so the first question I have for you, when was the first time you heard about redress for Japanese Americans?

DI: I think it's important to note that in the mid '50s, when veterans began getting together, and internees had reunions, the first item that they discussed was, "Let's do something that will make people remember what happened." So they were talking about museums, one for the camps, another for the veterans. That went on for a while. And then about, oh, mid-'50s, no, mid-'60s, I remember I just got in the Senate, I heard the word "redress" uttered several times by Japanese American groups. And I inquired, "What are you talking about?" And they wanted some, oh, acknowledgement by the government that something wrong had occurred with no cause, and they wanted some token of this acknowledgement. I thought it was a good idea, and I recall that the JACL chapters began talking about it. I remember going to 442 meetings and saying, "Yeah, something should be done." Then I don't know whether it was '78 or '79, I got a call from JACL, John, suggesting that we get together. And my so-called "capitol hideaway" was midway between the House and the Senate, so I remember using that office. There were JACL people, a lot of them, and Spark, and all of the members of Congress: Norm Mineta and Bob Matsui. I think Patsy Mink and, oh, Saiki, one of the two were there. And we brought up redress. And the first suggestion was, "Let's put in a bill right away. There's no question about what happened, and add a sum, and go for it." And some of us, including myself, felt that this was unwise. Because I was convinced that the vast, vast majority of the people of the United States had no idea about these interned people. They had no idea of Executive Order 9066, and they had no idea that only Japanese Americans without cause were put into these camps. So I remember suggesting a commission be formed. Which was not hailed with support. "Why go through this commission business?" Because traditionally, when somebody suggests a commission, that means to give them a slow death. "Let's have a hearing," and suddenly fades away. But I said, "No, I think it's very important that there's involvement of internees at hearings. And the most important thing would be the makeup of the commission." And there I think we spent a couple of meetings just on that.

TI: But going back to that first meeting, what was the reaction of, in particular, the JACL people, when you proposed the commission idea?

DI: Oh, it was received with horror. Although John thought it was a good idea. They thought, "That means we're gonna stall this further? Don't you think we've stalled this long enough?" I said, "I would rather stall it and keep it alive than go for it and die a sudden death." And the final decision was not a happy one. But Spark and I insisted, we felt we were correct, and the commission was made up of one Nikkei, that's all.

TI: I'm sorry, the commission had one Nikkei, or made up of one?

DI: No. In the beginning, when the commission form was adopted, then the makeup became the next question. Who would make up the commission? And they were talking about sixty percent Nikkei, forty percent others. And we said, "No. If you did that, it'll be a 'Jap' commission. Everyone will look upon it, 'Oh, it's a "Jap" commission recommending something special for the "Japs."' So I said, "Let's have one. Select someone carefully who is knowledgeable and who can speak with some authority." So we picked the judge. Quiet, unassuming, but hardworking. He was, I would say, the unsung hero of the whole movement. Yes, he did come in late, but his work and participation on the commission was just amazing. Every time they had a question they went to him.

<End Segment 1> - Copyright © 2008 Densho. All Rights Reserved.