Hostility towards the Japanese-Canadians increased significantly in 1937, and was linked to Japan’s vague merging with the Italy-Germany axis around the time of WWII. Rumors of Japanese spies hiding among Japanese-Canadians along the BC coast circulated. As most Canadians associated the immigrant Japanese and their children with the activities of the Japanese in the Far East, 1937 became a critical turning point in the well being of the Japanese in Canada. “Political and business opportunism” against the Japanese-Canadians furthered, where imports and exports to Japan from Canada were boycotted, as well as local businesses like restaurants in British Columbia. Even the University of British Columbia did not seem immune from “racist propaganda” (Adachi 1976: 184). In 1942, the university dismissed sixty Nisei (second generation Japanese-Canadians) men from its military training program, and all the Nisei women from university studies, worried about public criticism (Adachi 1976: 230). This marginalization, however, did not stop Japanese-Canadians from showing loyalty to the Canada. Over $400,000 was donated from the Japanese community towards Canada’s war efforts, despite the provincial government denying Japanese residents from participating in the military (Adachi 1976, 184).
1941- The effect of the Pearl Harbour attack
“
“It Can Happen Here” Vancouver Parashooter c. 1940
The attack on Pearl Harbour on December 7, 1941 the entire social and economic framework of the Japanese Canadian Community was dismantled by the actions of their government. At the provincial level, the government immediately decided that it was in the best interest of the public to keep track of all Japanese-Canadians, and through the order-in-council PC 9591, Japanese-Canadians were required to “register by February 7 with the Registrar of Enemy Aliens”, even though many of them were Canadian-born Nisei. Failure to comply with the order resulted in heavy fines, or prison time including heavy labour. Each registered “alien” had to produce their registration card at request at every public event they attended. It was soon evident that the “status of the Nisei and naturalized immigrants as Canadian citizens was already being clearly eroded in favour of their status as descendants of the Japanese enemy” (Adachi 1976: 200).
When the War Measures Act was put into use in the 1940s, it allowed a series of orders in council to be issued, since the act transferred full powers to the Cabinet, “in the event of war, invasion, or insurrection” (Canada 1942: chp. 206). The issuing of orders-in-council meant that any actions made against the Japanese nationals were legal, whether just or unjust. Also, under the War Measures Act the Cabinet did not have to reveal any of its plans or actions to Parliament (Miki and Kobayashi 1991: 25). After order-in-council PC 9591, a succession of orders-in-council were applied further restricting the daily lives of Japanese residents: registration of all people of Japanese race, the evacuation of male aliens, the disposal of fishing boats, the control over the movement of any person of Japanese race (Adachi 1976: 208, 209, 261). During the time of Japanese evacuation, the German and Italian immigrants were never affected even though it was widely acknowledged that those countries were Canada’s enemies. The use of the War Measures Act was seriously abused during WWII. It legalized the government actions, even though they were based on racist mind-set and not necessary by military standards for national security. Considering the past sentiment and wishes for the Japanese to repatriate back to Japan, the bombing of Pearl Harbour can be perceived as a convenient event that justified the actions of the government during WWII to free themselves of the Japanese threat in Canada.
Under the War Measures Act, the Japanese Canadians in BC experienced a turbulent time during the year of 1942. Not only were they displaced from their homes, but they also lost all property, and were often separated from their families. Men were sent to work at labour camps and if they showed the simplest resistance, were sent to prisoner of war camps, and women and children were sent to the BC interior in internment camps (Miki and Kobayashi 1991: 20-24). Living conditions were rarely adequate, and the treatment of the Japanese at the camps was unreasonable—there is much literature that captures the experiences of Japanese Canadians during their internment. For example, in “Where the Heart Is”, Tameo Kanbara describes the treatment of interns at the Angler camp:
We were shipped out of Vancouver on the second week of July. As we enter the Angler internment camp, I felt like I was caged in when the guard with machine guns closed the outer and inner barbed wire gates with a weird noise…After going through medical parade, we were ordered to surrender all civilian belongings except our underwear. We were supplied with POW outfits and just before lunch time I was POW No. 348… There was a big red, 12-15 inch circle on the backs of shirts, jackets, coats and cardigans… The red was not in honour of the rising sun, but to provide a better target for the guards in case of an escape (Enomoto et al.: 23-25).
Conditions at the female internment camps were not always favourable either. What the Department of Labour called an “efficiently” functioning town with “free housing, fuel, light, medical care,… [and] clothing” was in reality, a town run by the internees, with no choice but to make use of scarce resources essential to their survival (Roy and Kobayashi 1991: 35). For anyone to endure such displacement and loss meant the loss of life, and their place in society. Everything that the Issei (first generation) Japanese-Canadians had proudly worked for was carelessly destroyed. Resistance was almost impossible, because in Japanese tradition, subservience was a prevalent approach to authority (1976 Adachi: 234).
The second uprooting of the Japanese in Canada
After WWII, the government attributed its wartime actions to the war hysteria in British Columbia and argued that the fear of Japanese invasion was a concern that needed to be addressed through their re-location. They also added that the wartime atmosphere was so tense with hostility towards Japanese Canadians that the mass evacuation was “a way of protecting them from racial violence”. Such an explanation was actively promoted by the presiding government of the day, and continued in the minds of many Canadians for a time (Miki and Kobayashi 1991: 46).
By August 1944, Prime Minister Mackenzie King acknowledged that the Japanese threat to national security was no longer a concern. But instead of releasing the Japanese internees back to the coast in 1945, they were given two choices: to repatriate to Japan, or to move east of the Rockies to disperse so “that they do not present themselves as an unassimilable bloc or colony which might again give rise to distrust, fear, and dislike. It is the fact of concentration that has given rise to the problem” (Department of Labour 1947: 7). For many Canadian-born Nisei, Japan was foreign place. Many had never visited the country, and most knew little or no Japanese. Furthermore, WWII had seriously damaged Japan, economically, socially, and physically. Those who chose to go back to Japan came back only to find that neither Japan could provide them shelter from their troubles. It was becoming evident that Canada had not learned its lesson. Despite the cruel treatment of the Japanese in the camps, the government chose to interpret their experiences differently. The relocation process was only the first phase in the government’s plan to “permanently erase the presence of the Japanese Canadian community on the BC coast for reasons other than national security” (Miki and Kobayashi 1991: 49).
PM King was aware that race was a principle factor in the uprooting, but justified his actions by reasoning that Japanese Canadians were their own victims of racial ancestry, and were responsible for the racial tension in Canada, and not the people of European background. A second relocation, then, was the answer to the Japanese’s supposed problem of racial difference. But the second relocation only seemed to benefit the white citizens of Canada—the Japanese Canadians would now be politically isolated and thus powerless individuals.
Redress
Although it may seem that the spirit of Japanese Canadians was disintegrating during the harshest times of relocation, there was always a desire to persist and struggle for democracy and compensation. Demand for compensation began instantly after internment. In 1943, several Nisei formed the Japanese Canadian Committee for Democracy, a group that wanted to continue the struggle by the community, that began in 1930, to achieve franchise, and assessment to the economic losses that resulted from internment. As awareness and a re-awakening of Japanese Canadian identity occurred in the years to come, the Committee grew and became the National Japanese Canadian Citizens’ Association (NJCCA), and then later, the National Japanese Canadian Association (NAJC) by 1980 (Roy and Kobayashi 1991: 58).
Their struggle was not a simple one. Japanese Canadians were first disappointed in 1950 by the Bird Commission’s approach to compensation. Firstly, Justice Bird considered that the amount to be compensated was determined by “the difference between the sale price set by the Custodian of Enemy Property, and the fair market value at the time of sale”. Secondly, the compensation amounts were even further reduced because of the deterioration of the property during the war. Lastly, the Commission eventually decided that hearing individual cases was too time-consuming, and ended up treating losses in general categories. (Roy et al. 1990: 155)
1977 was the beginning of redress achievement. A Reparations committee was established to investigate the possibility of redress, and a series of meetings took place with three consecutive Ministers of Multiculturalism. After several breakdown talks with the Ministers, the committee finally struck a deal in 1988, shortly after the United States granted redress for all of its Japanese American interns. The settlement included:
“a formal acknowledgement of the injustices endured by the Japanese Canadians during and after the Second World War, financial compensations for the injustices, a review and amendment of the War Measures Act, and relevant solutions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms so that no Canadian would ever again be subjected to such wrongs” (Miki and Kobayashi, 1991: 10).
Compensation had finally been granted to the survivors of the internment experience, and many felt liberated of the burden they carried for years after the destructive event.
PART II: SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF WARTIME EXPERIENCES
Pre-War Attitudes
Japanese people immigrated to Canada for the same reasons as did the Europeans. As expressed at the beginning of the essay, the Japanese immigrated to Canada in search of new life and prosperity. Having been the end of a regime of strict authoritarianism during the Tokugawa period, the Japanese people were attracted to the idea of a just and democratic government of the newly formed Canada (Adachi 1976: 1-6). But a pattern of social inequality quickly emerged as an increasing number of Japanese immigrants came to Canada, particularly BC. Although the Japanese were law-abiding citizens, they became marginalized from significant opportunities in employment, political rights, and even daily affairs, and to shield themselves from such discrimination, they often created their own neighbourhoods where networking with fellow Japanese immigrants created a support system. The small fishing town of Steveston in Richmond, BC was an example of a little, but closely-knit immigrant community that provided support through the creation of their own institutions like schools, churches, and fishermen’s associations (Marlatt 1975: 45).
Despite the marginalization that they suffered during this time, Japanese Canadians were willing to show their loyalty and commitment to Canada. They realized that adopting society’s desired cultural values was essential to attaining a good socio-economic status and inter-group relation. Rather than teaching their children Japanese culture, the Issei encouraged the Western education for the Nisei. They were “essentially ‘Canadian’ in speech, dress, and manner; few had been to Japan and they had been or were being educated in the public and high school systems of British Columbia…the Nisei had been subjected to many forms of discrimination, but their belief in democratic principles was, by and large, firm enough” (Adachi 1976: 235).
During WWII
More marginalization occurred as race was becoming an apparent issue, and eventually, the main factor of their oppression. By institutionalizing powerlessness through the implementation of policies such as the orders-in-council, the provincial government was able to confine their freedom and rights. In addition to these restrictions, the Japanese Canadians lost property, land, and their employment during WWII, and this only contributed to further disempowerment and isolation of the community.
Another event that contributed the isolation of the individual from society was their internment. Displacing individuals against their will from their original homes not only caused isolation, but also the hindrance of identity formation, and emotional stress. Their displacement also meant the suppression of any cultural, traditional, and historical dissemination, tied to a specific and familiar land. Often, this land was the property that the Issei had worked hard for since arriving to Canada, but since they were now displaced it was difficult to teach their children about their history, and to pass this property down to them. For example, Hirito Okinasa an Issei, believed strongly in the tradition that land was a source of wealth, and spent his life fishing to earn money so that he could purchase a farm that he could pass down to his children (Adachi, 1976: 185).
Lastly, displacement also meant the destruction of kinship systems. In a culture that depended heavily on the male member of the family for their welfare, the forced separation of the male adults from women and children meant the weakening of a structure that once provided them strength. Whatever work that the men had done for their families was passed down to the women and children (Omatsu 1992: 54). In their actions taken to expel the Japanese out of Canada, the government knew well that the key to their success was to isolate the individual, and to discourage any form of collectivity, which is why they implemented the dispersal policy.
Post-WWII
Faced with little option but to disperse east of the Rockies, the Japanese Canadians were assigned to small farming or logging towns where European-immigrants unquestionably outnumbered them. Physically and mentally weakened from the constant relocation and isolation and wanting no more public attention, the Japanese Canadians quickly assimilated into Western society. In allowing this assimilation to happen, PM Mackenzie King, achieved a “cultural genocide” through assimilation (Fleras and Elliott 2003: 11).
As a result, the children of an aged Nisei population were passed little or no historical background of the preceding generations and their experiences. In addition, many Nisei parents did not want to burden their children with the past: some argue that these parents were “too ashamed after the humiliation of the forced evacuation and internment to provide much content to the ethnic identity of their offspring” and that the experience at the camp “has robbed the children of their ethnic identity, a sense of history and a connectedness to the community” (Makabe, 1998: 8).
Redress
Thanks to the growing coverage of media on the issue, the redress settlement had revived Japanese Canadian identity. In 1977 when actions for redress had started, the Japanese community was still in a dormant phase, discouraged by the outcome of the Bird Commission. Although associations and various organizations existed, not all people were active in their local communities, but the growth and media coverage of the issue of redress awakened the Japanese Canadians, and reminded them of their fight for the justice and democracy that they had once fought for in the 1930s. Knowledge of the fight for redress spread and transformed communities. Although this was a particular event, redress dealt with issues that transcended all types of communities. The struggle for redress recognized a “need to assert principles of human rights so that racism and other forms of discrimination might be challenged” (Kobayashi, 1992: 2). Because this redress affected a broader population outside the Japanese Canadian community, there was a larger support group that consisted of politicians, unions, churches, civil rights organizations, the media, schools and the public in general, who all supported the assertion of human rights. The settlement for redress provides all of us with an ideal example of how a Canadian multicultural community can work, and that healing is possible. This event, although it focused on a particular past of one ethnic group’s experiences, managed to affect others by making them aware of Canada’s history, and the continuation to fight for the development of democracy and Canada’s policies.
PART III: PRESENT IMMIGRATION POLICY AND MULTICULTURALISM ACT
Although the joyful event of the redress settlement positively affected the government, there are still some factors that we must examine, particularly in today’s immigration policies and in the Multiculturalism Act. Firstly, some argue that although the Multiculturalism Act that Pierre Trudeau had introduced in 1971 was meant to allow differences to be expressed while “sharing this land in peace, in justice, and with mutual respect”, Canada has welcome so many “multicultural”, cultural and ethnically diverse groups that it has become difficult, but not impossible, to find a common and agreeable Canadian identity amongst the population (Maddocks 2002).
Also, even if the Multiculturalism Act fostered a positive environment in Canada, the point system of the present immigration policy would prohibit some potential immigrants from entering Canada, as it is based on six categories (education, language, work experience, employment, and adaptability). Even if the potential immigrant obtains enough points in those categories, he or she may still be unable to apply, as application and processing fees may be an obstacle, and a $950 head tax is applied to each immigrant before entering the country—those who are economically disadvantaged have a tougher time entering (CIC Canada 2005). Furthermore, those in first world countries are more likely to be admitted into Canada, as countries like Australia, Britain, and France have better access to resources, like education, employment and language, that score higher points. Noticeably, the six major categories of the point system are categories that are valued in the Western world (Fleras and Elliott 2003: 258).
In addition to the structure of the immigration application, language is also an issue that discriminates. Although there are resources that help people, especially in third world contries, understand their application, many of them are only accessible through the internet, a luxury that many people in the third world cannot easily access. Also, the use of words is a concern that has been brought to attention by Roy Miki, an internment survivor, and English professor at Simon Fraser University:
Language can work to erase identities for one purpose and remake them for another purpose, and we’re seeing that now. Terms like terrorism—which really doesn’t identify anybody—is a specter that is simply out there. And that allows the government at this point to institute all kinds of actions that strip you of your rights. As long as that thing is out there you can have laws—the Patriot Act, for instance is very similar to what we had which was called the War Measures Act (Ince 2005).
Although the government has established policies like the Multiculturalism Act, and made reparations to the War Measures Act in consideration of the growing ethnocultural community, there is a strong argument that it uses this “multicultural” image to mask their continuation of systemic racism and discrimination, as shown investigation of the immigration application.
PART IV: JAPANESE CANADIAN REDRESS: A POSITIVE INFLUENCE ON THE ETHNOCULTURAL COMMUNITY
Another factor that is interesting to observe is how the Japanese Canadian redress has positively influenced the Aboriginal community’s journey for redress. During their fight for redress, the Japanese Canadians were supported by dozens of groups who identified with their experience and the need to assert human rights. One of the groups present was the Aboriginal community, who have been fighting for redress for years (Ebihara 1991). The design of the Japanese Canadian redress has shown a successful approach to equal co-operation of the Japanese Canadian community and the government, and it is apparent that the Aboriginals have adopted a similar method to redress. An Assembly of First Nations (AFN) report suggests that changes be made in the present process (Alternative Dispute Resolution or ADR) for compensation. Rather than having a process that “takes too long and costs too much, and does not address the need for truth-sharing, public education and awareness”, the AFN suggests a “two pronged approach” that involves fair and reasonable monetary compensation to each individual or their descendants according to personal experience, as well as to “ongoing activities and resources for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation [that emphasizes] culturally-based approaches to healing” (2004). The suggestion made by the AFN is similar to the format of the Japanese Canadian redress: individual compensation to each of the residential school survivors, a strengthening of the Aboriginal community through the establishment of cultural, and educational institutions, as well as a culturally-based healing program that would re-establish identity and power to the Aboriginal community.
The Japanese Canadians have stayed true to their word in showing that their redress was a symbolic step to the awareness of human rights. Not only have they lead the path in reconciling the past with the government, but they have also offered much support to numerous groups through the creation of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation (CRRF) which addresses a variety of human rights issues pertaining to the subject of race. In addition, shortly after the redress settlement of 1988, the Prime Minister announced that the government would also extend a formal apology to other Canadian ethnocultural communities who members have been mistreated by past Canadian governments (Department of Canadian Heritage 2003: no. 26).
Conclusion
In this essay, I have provided a historical and sociological analysis of the Japanese Canadian internment experience, and its effects on the larger Canadian community through an examination of the government’s changes and creations of policies. The world we live in is far removed than the one described by numerous accounts of the Japanese Canadian experience. Less than one hundred years separates us from the racist and hostile attitudes of the time, and it is hard to believe how quickly Canada has matured in its outlook toward its people: from the necessity of assimilation to the implementation of the Multiculturalism Act; but the nation still has much to discover and develop in terms of its land, people, and policies. We have its people to thank, who have shown that if democracy is used properly and truthfully, great effects are produced.
Works Cited
Adachi, Ken. 1976. The Enemy That Never Was: A History of the Japanese Canadians.
Toronto: The Canadian Publishers.
Assembly of First Nations. 2004. “Report on Canada’s Dispute Resolution Plan to
Compensate for Abuses in Indian Residential Schools”.
Canada. 1942. Proclamations and Orders in Council Passed Under the Authority of the
War Measures Act, RSC 1927 Chap. 206. Ottawa: J.O Patenaude.
_____. Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
_____. Department of Canadian Heritage. 2003. “Mearsures Adopted by the Government
of Canada”. Human Rights Program.
pdp-hrp/docs/cerd/fd11_e.cfm
_____. Department of Justice. 1985. Canadian Multiculturalism Act RS, 1985, c. 24 (4th
Supp.).
_____. Department of Labour. 1908. Report by W.L. Mackenzie King, CMG Deputy
Minister of Labour Commissioner Appointed to Investigate Into the Losses
Sustained by the Japanese Population of Vancouver, BC. Ottawa.
_____. Department of Labour. 1947. Report on Re-establishment of Japanese in Canada.
1944-46. Ottawa.
Ebihara, W. 1991. “Thunderstorms and the Earth Spirit”. Ohio State University Asian
American Voice. Fall.
Enomoto, R, Tatsuo Kage, and Victor Ujimoto (eds). 1993. Where the Heart Is:
Homecoming ’92. Vancouver: NRC Publishing.
Fleras, A. and Jean Leonard Elliott. 2003. Unequal Relations: An Introduction to Race
and Ethnic Dynamics in Canada. Toronto: Prentice Hall.
Ince, Judith. 2005. “Terrorism: Today’s Yellow Peril?” The Tyee. March 22.
Kobayashi, Audrey. “The Japanese-Canadian Resdress Settlement and Its Implications
for ‘Race Relations’”. Canadian Ethnic Studies 24 (1).
Maddocks, R. 2002. “Multiculturalism: Racism Disgused?” Le Quebecois Libre,
November 9. .
Makabe, Tomoko. 1998. The Canadian Sansei. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
Incorporated.
Marlatt, Daphne. 1975. Steveston Recollected: A Japanese-Canadian History. Victoria.
Miki, Roy and Cassandra Kobayashi. 1991. Justice In Our Time. The Japanese Canadian
Redress Settlement. Vancouver: Talonbooks.
Omatsu, Maryka. 1992. Bittersweet Passage. Toronto: Between the Lines.
Roy, Patricia E.. The Oriental Question: Consolidating a White Man’s Province.
Vancouver: UBC Press.
_____, J.L. Granatstein, Masako Iino, and Hiroko Takamura. 1990. Mutual Hostages:
Canadians and Japanese During the Second World War. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Takata, Toyo. 1983. Nikkei Legacy: The Story of Japanese Canadians from Settlement to
Today. Toronto: NC Press Limited.
