Does the USA run concentration camps?

Short answer – yes, by any accepted definition.

The term is not equivalent to “death camps” or “extermination camps.” Students of history know that American officials and media used the term “concentration camp” with regard to the Japanese internment camps in the USA: President Franklin D. Roosevelt (10/20/42, 11/21/44); President Harry S. Truman (4/59); General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Assistant Chief of Staff (3/28/42); Attorney General Francis Biddle (12/3/44); Life Magazine (4/6/42); San Francisco Chronicle, front page editorial (2/1/42).

The Japanese-American “concentration camps” (terminology debate) were very similar to the camps where refugees, illegal aliens and asylum seekers are held today.

One error in the article linked above. It claims there were no internment camps for German-Americans in WW2. That is incorrect. There were many during WW1, and some during WW2. There were about 11,000 German-Americans interned during WW2, but that was a small figure compared to the massive number of Japanese-Americans who were interned, which was at least 100,000, of which some 60% or more were American citizens.

One wonders if the massive difference between Asian and European internment can be attributed to geography. The USA seemed especially worried about protecting the coastlines, and Japanese Americans were concentrated on the west coast, but realistically, it was probably anti-Asian racism that caused the USA to intern so many more Japanese than Italians or Germans.

As for the other Axis allies, I may have missed some minor details in history, but to my knowledge, the USA never interned any Americans whose ethnic roots were Hungarian, Romanian, Finnish or Bulgarian, even though their root countries were allied with the Axis at various times.

25 thoughts on “Does the USA run concentration camps?

  1. If she “clearly was not talking about extermination camps at all,” then why did her original statement deliberately cite the motto “Never again,” which is a clear reference to the Holocaust?

    1. You can’t fight the dictionary. She was 100% right. They ARE concentration camps. There’s no room for dispute.

      A concentration camp is an “internment centre for members of national or minority groups who are confined for reasons of state security,” or more broadly, “the mass detention of civilians without trial.”

      To argue anything else is simply to echo the words of men who have room temperature IQs who don’t know how to use a dictionary and mistakenly think the only kind of concentration camps were the ones run by Nazis. The USA has also run concentration camps in the past. (That’s what the Japanese-American internment areas would be properly called, and were so called by President Roosevelt, other government officials, and the press of that era.)

      Liz Cheney may snidely declaim that AOC knows no history, but actual historians, perhaps the majority of them, and especially the ones who are experts in this specific subject, support AOC!

      As Bobby Jindal said, it’s time for the Republican party to stop being the stupid party.

      As I’ve now repeated several times, it would not matter if we kept the detainees in 4-star accommodations, fed them at Vegas-style buffets, and provided top-line education, medical care and unlimited A-list entertainment. They would still be concentration camps.

      Of course, they would start to approach the Nazi level of torture if the entertainers included Celine Dion.

      Where AOC seems to lose perspective is that this detention system was started under Bill Clinton, and maintained by both Bush and Obama, so it is not even a specific indictment of Trump, but more a wake-up call for all Americans to realize just what we’re doing with these people who want “in.”

      They have become less humane under Trump, but it’s probably fair to argue that the difficult recent conditions have been exacerbated by the recent surge in people that the system has had to deal with. That doesn’t absolve Trump’s people of blame, but it’s important to note mitigating circumstances.

      Actually, I kinda think Trump is making a fair attempt to deal with the situation. He wants more judges down there to get detainees processed faster, and he’s trying several approaches to to stem the tide of the refugees. Is he always right? No. Have we made mistakes in handling the recent surge? Yes. But we were overwhelmed and had to deal with it, so some of the hastily-improvised responses were poorly chosen. That doesn’t mean we won’t or can’t do much better.

  2. Not relevant to the definition. In other words, although she was talking about extermination camps and refined them, we’ll parse words to make her sound reasonable.

    1. We didn’t parse words, and she clearly was not talking about extermination camps at all. She herself said, “Concentration camps are not the same as death camps. Concentration camps are ‘the mass detention of civilians without trial.’ And that’s exactly what this administration is doing.”

      Despite the “spin” of various illiterate Republicans and hopelessly ignorant dimwits, this is not really a debatable issue. She is 100% correct, and there is no valid contradictory argument. That’s how language works, and she used the term completely correctly. As I’ve noted earlier, even if all the detainees were housed in 4-star accommodations and given unlimited college educations, free health care, and Vegas-style buffets with every meal, that would still be considered a concentration camp by definition. She did draw attention to the fact that the conditions were considerably worse than that.

      As she noted: “DHS ripped 1000s of children from their parents & put them in cages w inhumane conditions. They call their cells ‘dog pounds’ & ‘freezers.’ If that makes you uncomfortable, fight the camps, not the nomenclature.”

  3. Meanwhile, thousands of homeless veterans would love to have a place to stay with access to healthcare and meals.

  4. “Namely, the Japanese Americans were living in the US, most actually US citizens, home owners, business owners, people that did nothing wrong whatsoever.”

    It was a horrible (racist) injustice in American history to place Japanese Americans into internment camps. I took Japanese American experience class, so I know many of the details. They didn’t do this other European descendants where US and their allies were fighting against. Couple that with Chinese Exclusion Act, US government targeted really specific two Asian groups with their racist polices.

    “Putting CRIMINALS in camps is not only fair and just, it is downright hospitable.”

    So I’ll just say this: two wrongs do not equal right.

    You can’t deem all or most or many as criminals. You’re not the judge and jury here. Many are fleeing gang-infested, violence-riddled areas where government is absolutely corrupt. People have right to seek asylum. If they don’t qualify, then that’s when you place them in internment camp before you send them back. That’s fair. But don’t use a broad stroke and judge those seeking asylums as criminals.

    1. You took a class? Seriously? You’re definitely an expert.

      If someone comes here illegally,. by definition they have broken the law.

      1. Not relevant to the definition.

        A concentration camp involves “mass detention of civilians without trial,” says the woman who literally wrote the book on the subject, Andrea Pitzer, author of One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps.

        Some are worse than others, but they are all concentration camps.

        Also, it’s important to remember that many of those detained at the U.S./Mexico border are asylum-seekers who are not doing anything illegal, and others are unaccompanied minors.

        Now you may argue that these concentration camps are necessary or unnecessary. You may certainly say that these concentration camps are not as bad as other types in the past. But they are still concentration camps.

    2. Re your point “They didn’t do this other European descendants where US and their allies were fighting against.”

      Again, there were also German-American internment camps, but there were no mass round-ups, there were far fewer German-Americans interned than Japanese-Americans, and the German ethnics rarely included any American citizens.

      It is also worth noting that Canada evacuated and interned more Japanese-Canadians as a proportion of its population.

      22,000 Japanese-Canadians were relocated versus 120,000 Japanese-Americans. The population of Canada at the time was 11 million, while the USA had 150 million, so the USA internment amounted to .08 of a percent of its population, versus .20 percent of Canada’s.

      1. You’re right. German-Americans were detained and camped but on an individual basis and many of them were German nationals who had been on the watch list prior.

        1. Yes, as I noted. “There were no mass round-ups” and “and the German ethnics rarely included any American citizens.”

          In contrast, the Japanese internment camps included an estimated 70,000 presumably loyal American citizens.

  5. Seeking asylum is not a criminal activity. It’s protected by international treaty.

  6. this debate pisses me off – my family was part of the Japanese concentration camps in WW2, and while they are similar in structure, there are a couple MAJOR differences. Namely, the Japanese Americans were living in the US, most actually US citizens, home owners, business owners, people that did nothing wrong whatsoever. Lost in history is the fact that almost all these people lost everything as a result – they had no homes to go back to, their businesses shut down, jobs gone, friends gone. They all had to start over.

    Comparing these to people that broke into the United States and should at best be in jail is just absurd. Putting CRIMINALS in camps is not only fair and just, it is downright hospitable.

    1. Pisses me off more. America is putting people in concentration camps. This is not debatable, it is fact. Playing these silly-ass word games only delays the real question – are you for this or against it? And why?

      No, these people are not here illegally and they did not commit a crime by coming here (Long version: https://boingboing.net/2019/06/18/nextdoor-is-terrible.html).

      The treatment of the Issei/Nisei was also shitty. They were also put in concentration camps. It’s not a contest, but if it will make you feel any better, these refugees only didn’t “lose everything” because they didn’t have anything in the first place.

    2. 1. “Illegal” aliens are interned, but so are those who present themselves as asylum-seekers. It is legal to seek asylum.

      2. Nothing in your comment has anything to do with the definition of a “concentration camp,” which has nothing to do with illegality or citizenship. The definition encompasses the current refugee/asylum camps, the Japanese-American internment camps, and the Nazi death camps. They are not being compared, but they are all “concentration camps,” by definition.

      3. In some ways, the current camps are actually worse than the Japanese-American internment camps in WW2. The government did not split families then, and the children were educated.

      1. The definition of a “concentration camp” isn’t the same as the topic of discussion. The reference to “concentration camps” clearly referenced ww2 nazi Germany “concentration camps” where 6m Jews were murdered. The comparison is therefore ridiculous.

        1. In fact it IS the subject of discussion, which is whether the USA runs concentration camps.

          It does, by definition.

          That is not to compare them in severity to other types of concentration camps, like the Nazi ones, or the Japanese-American ones in WW2. That comparison is what misses the point, which is that the camps on the Southern border are concentration camps, again by definition.

          1. I get that you are focusing on the general definition of a “concentration camp” however the parallel was clearly made to nazi Germany and their concentration camps. There are no similarities between a camp for Jewish citizens to be “exterminated” and housing for illegal aliens who are being housed pending their trial. That is ludicrous and you know it.

          2. They are both “concentration camps,” by definition, even though wildly dissimilar, just as Rory McIlroy and I are both “golfers,” by definition. That’s just how words work. Oh, those wacky dictionaries and encyclopedias and their zany ways of assigning meanings to words!

            “Internment center for members of national or minority groups who are confined for reasons of state security.”

            On the other hand, the refugee detention centers in the USA cannot be called “death camps” or “extermination camps,” and they should not be directly equated to Trump. The origin dates all the way back to Bill Clinton.

            So the question originally posed was “Does the USA operate concentration camps?” and the answer is “Yes.” It is worthwhile to note that even if all the detainees were held in the conditions of a 4-star hotel and given free college educations and top medical care, that would STILL be a concentration camp.

            But, as you say, there are many nuances to be considered, and many different levels of severity within the definition.

      2. “3. In some ways, the current camps are actually worse than the Japanese-American internment camps in WW2. The government did not split families then, and the children were educated.”

        this is false. How do I know? Because my father and his sisters were separated. The children were educated by the other people interned. Plus, the separated families of today are the ones that have no documentation saying they are related. Saying that today’s camps are worse is just insulting.

        What pisses me off isn’t the statement that concentration camps exist, it’s using semantics to compare my painful history to further political bullshit.

        1. Hey, you’re the one doing the comparing. If you don’t like it, stop.

          The political bullshit is trying to demonize a group of screwed-over people because it furthers your agenda. The existence of these camps is part of that. The words (or “semantics”, if you must) are being used to expose and oppose it. Try to fucking keep up.

        2. I apologize if family separation was part of the internment. I didn’t know that, and I’ve read a lot about the subject. This is the first time I’ve ever heard a claim that sibling children were separated, and I’ve never read about children being separated from their parents. (Except in the rare cases where one of the parents was arrested for a real crime.)

          Your argument is that using the same terminology for Japanese internment camps and today’s refugee camps is an insult. If that is true, then using the same terminology for Japanese internment camps and Nazi death camps is an insult to those millions who were killed by the Nazis. But it’s not true. We can see the obvious, that the Nazi camps were worse than the Japanese-American camps, which were in turn more unjust than the current detention camps. But they were all concentration camps by definition, just as Rory McIlroy and I are both golfers by definition, even though there’s no comparison between us. There are no tricky semantics involved. All three (Nazis, Japanese-American internment, and current refugee camps) are all concentration camps, but there is a wide gulf between them. As I’ve pointed out earlier in this thread, if the detainees were all held in 4-star accommodations, given unlimited free education and health care, and given Vegas-style buffets for every meal, it would still be a concentration camp, by definition. That’s just the way words work. They have specific meanings, and the meaning in this case is “Internment center for members of national or minority groups who are confined for reasons of state security.” The treatment of the interned population is not part of the definition.

  7. The argument is the same one we saw with torture: “It’s unpatriotic to call it that when we do it.”

Comments are closed.