Densho Digital Archive - Daniel Inouye Interview

<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.

<Begin Segment 2>

TI: Earlier you mentioned Spark Matsunaga. Can you talk about his role, not only during this time, but throughout the passage of the bill?

DI: Well, he... he was an amiable fellow, so he started rounding up the votes. And I did my part in the Senate. Spark wanted to go not just in the Senate, but in the House. Because he spent some time in the House, and many of the incumbents there were his buddies. So he played a very important role. Then when the commission was formed, it was, I think historically, one of the most distinguished commissions we've ever had. Can you imagine a Supreme Court Justice, a United States Senator, African American? A Justice of Jewish faith? Then we had a congressman who was openly opposed to it. We wanted to make it bipartisan. We didn't want it to be something that was loaded. And so -- [coughs] -- excuse me. When the hearings were concluded, and I think the hearings were historic, hundreds participated, and emotion just dripped all over the rooms. I went to two of them, and I must confess to you that I couldn't take anymore. I don't see how the others did. Then when the commission issued its recommendation, no one could believe it. It was perfect. Apology, they said it was no cause, no indictment, no trial, everything that we wanted, plus the monetary redress. And so I strongly suggested, I said, "This is your number, 442." And that's the number of the bill. And my strongest recommendation was, "Don't change any punctuation mark, take the whole recommendation and put it in. No more, no less. Then we can say it is not our recommendation, it is the recommendation of mayors and governors and senators and judges and justices." What more do you want?

TI: Excellent. So I'm going to now jump forward. And I wanted to get your thoughts when you were there, when President Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act.

DI: Before that...

TI: Okay.

DI: If there's any contribution that I made, it was one. I was on the Appropriations Committee, and so I spoke to the leadership of the Senate and the Appropriations Committee, and we had that proposal made into an entitlement. Otherwise, we'd be going back every year getting more funds. Because nowhere are you gonna get a billion dollars right off the bat. No one's gonna appropriate that kind of money. Even for the Department of Defense, it's difficult to get one billion dollars in one crack. Therefore, if it's an entitlement, you can go for a hundred million this time, fifty million next time. The only problem is they may have to wait. But once the law was passed, everyone living was entitled to it. It's like social security, you're entitled to it.

TI: And it was through your, sort of, knowledge and experience of the funding process that made you think that was the best way to fund this.

DI: Well, it was the only way.

TI: And so when that was proposed, you made a speech on the floor of the Senate. Do you remember, recall that when you...

DI: I made a few speeches, but...

TI: Can you describe that speech if you can?

DI: Well, all I remember -- I don't remember the words -- but it was a moment of high emotion. Because I remembered Rohwer. When I first visited the camp, I had no idea that there were camps of this nature. When we got the invitation, I just assumed that in Arkansas there was a small community of Japanese, and we're looking forward to that. Good time, all of us took our ukuleles and guitars. And we practiced and played all the way from Mississippi to Arkansas. On the way back, not one person spoke. It was just quiet. And I think all of them were thinking the same thought and question: "Would I have volunteered if I were in that camp?" That's a good question because I don't know what the answer is. I was eighteen, I was in today's situation, a bit rambunctious, an activist, and I would have said, "Nuts to you." I don't know.

TI: Good.

<Begin Segment 3>

TI: Thinking about, now, to today, when you think back in terms of redress, this is the twentieth anniversary of the signing of the redress, what impact, or what has that, what has redress achieved, do you think, for our country and for the Japanese American community?

DI: Well, it made our concept of democracy get closer to perfection. I've always maintained that democracy is imperfect. But we're always in an evolution trying to perfect ourselves. Take, for example -- I may say this tonight, I don't know -- when I studied the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Franklin, who proposed changes and such, it dawned upon me that all of those who were saying that all men are created equal all had slaves. Every one of 'em. Yes, they treated their slaves like humans, but nevertheless, they were slaves. And all had wives, and none of 'em voted. See, it was far from perfection. So it's evolving. Now, this, if you look into history, this is the first time I believe that the country, our nation, on an important issue, apologized. Oh, they've done it for someone getting killed on the street or something like that, but for something this historic, to apologize for what they have done. And as far as I'm concerned, I don't know how you measure in terms of dollars what would be appropriate. For me, the apology was the important thing, acknowledgement by the government. And when that happened, I became a really proud member. I was always proud of my country, but this one really gave it the zap.

TI: And what do you think it achieved for the Japanese American community?

DI: Well, for one thing, it uplifted them. They made, they said to themselves, "This is a good country. What other country would have done this?" And I think the results can be seen today. More on a per capita basis among the ethnic groups, Japanese in colleges. More with graduate degrees. The lowest crime rate. And all these are profound statistics. And I think what refreshed it was to give the Japanese Americans and the Nikkei a little bit of understanding of what our democracy was all about. That it may be slow at time, and painful, but it comes through.

TI: Good. So one last question, and that's thinking back to the day that President Reagan signed the bill, 1988, August, you were there, and behind him while he signed it. What was going through your mind when that was happening?

DI: Well, I said, "I'm a witness to history being made." The only thing is you don't see me in any official picture. I was way out on the end, you know. I had to shove Spark in the front and say, "Get in there." So I wanted Spark to get his credit, too.

TI: And what did this mean to Spark? Since he's not here to share, what do you think this all meant to Spark?

DI: I think he looked upon this as his greatest involvement in something important. And after this, he began thinking about the Institute of Peace. That if we are big enough to do this, then we should be big enough to train people to conduct peace. See, we have training institutions to teach men and women how to kill, how to go to war. This is the first one to teach and train men and women on how to conduct peace.