The United States has a long history of mistreating groups who are different from the dominant group and the antecedents pre-date the American Revolution.  The varied groups were mistreated, cheated and targeted which included most minority immigrants (Irish, Eastern Europeans, Italians, Hispanics, and Asians) along with the indigenous population and former slaves. Prior to the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, the U.S. government never formally apologized and provided financial redress.  The Civil Liberties Act of 1998 represented a significant change of policy and attitude toward recompensing groups wronged by the U.S. government but the passage of HR 442 narrowly defined the redress policy.

The author, Brian Weiner, describes the Civil Liberties Act as “the most significant event in contemporary reparations politics.”[1]  The story behind the act can be viewed in two lights.  The first is a cautionary tale; and the second is a tale of apology and redemption.  The tragic events caused by the 1942 Executive Order 9066 which caused the “forced evacuation and relocation”[2]  of the Japanese living in Western U.S. regardless of citizenship status to internment camps can be viewed as a cautionary tale of how institutional anti-minority rhetoric can snowball.  Executive Order 9066 did not occur in a vacant vacuum but rather as a result of institutional racism dating back to the Gold Rush in 1848 and earlier laws limiting Asian immigration.  The “congressional debates”[3]and record about HR 442 provides a careful record of how apology and redemption transpired.  In Sins of the Parents, the author expresses how the “congressional debate…[produced] an unusually principled examination of the issues concerning the present government’s responsibility for redressing the wrongs inflicted upon Japanese Americans.”[4]

The debate about the passage of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 contained four arguments against any apology or redress along with being the accepted prevailing policies and attitudes.  The first argument made by the opponents of the future act included the two living officials involved in the decision and implementation of Executive Order 9066. They argued that the policy was necessary to protect the security of the United States and its military installations along the Pacific Ocean.  In other words, the argument implies that necessity to protect the country’s security could be used to justify any security or military action.  But the National Redress Commission found that the Japanese residents and Japanese American’s were never a security threat so the policy was not necessary and as the commission stated, “that the internment policy was a result of racism, war hysteria and failed political leadership.”[5]

The second argument made by the opponents of the Act pointed out that the Commission had the benefit of time and outcomes to second guess any and all decisions by of World War 2.  The argument about 20-20 hindsight[6]can be used for just about any miscarriage of justice: stealing of indigenous lands; slavery; segregation; racial profiling and internment; but does not mean it is ethical or moral.  But in the landscape of late 20^th century worldwide politics where many countries have apologized and provided fiscal remuneration to the groups that they have been mistreated and or wronged the excuse of 20-20 hind sight rang hollow and still rings hollow.

The third argument made by the opponents of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 and the National Redress Commission is that in time of war all residents and citizens of the U.S. need to make sacrifice just like soldiers make, the myth of noble sacrifice for the greater good.  The argument is a myth, a myth used to justify many racist attitudes and actions perpetrated by people and governments.  War may be necessary but has never been noble or good and comparing the internment of Japanese as justified sacrifice was wrong.

The fourth argument made by the opponents along with being a generally held policy and attitude was that providing any fiscal or monetary redress in time of “ballooning federal deficits”[7]  was wrong.  The commonly held opinion was why the government should provide fiscal redress to a minority group that was successful or moderately comfortable and was not “suffering economic woes?”[8] But in the time of recognizing the importance of national apologies, the National Commission on Redress recommended a symbolic payment to people “who had been evacuated or interned.”[9]  The successful and almost universal passage by members of Congress of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 represented a change in policy and attitude and counters the opponent’s argument.

HR 442 or the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 passed in the House of Representatives September 21, 1987 and “was a truly unprecedented within American politics”[10] along with the unusual bi-partisan support. The possibility of the HR 442 being used as a precedent for the many other minorities mistreatment in light of how the Japanese American’s experience shined a light on the previous past wrongdoings either perpetrated or tacitly allowed by the U.S. government was a congressional concern.  In order for HR 442 to pass, the wording was carefully crafted to only allow fiscal redress to be awarded$20,000 to the living Japanese American citizens who survived the internment camps.  In addition, the wording of the Act was written so the harm to Japanese American’s was considered more individual racism rather than group dynamics.  One of the most outspoken opponents to the HR 442 was Senator Jesse Helms and tried to kill the act, defund the act by attaching amendments to the bill.  He was successful in attaching an amendment which “was intended to preclude…this legislation [HR 442] from being used as a precedent in the courts”[11] to make sure no other group past or future could seek reparations.

The author sums up how regardless of the wording of HR 442 and title three amendment other groups would and have attempted to use the law to seek redress.  The goal of the HR 442 was as a symbolic apology despite the lacking of addressing the internment of non-citizens and the claims of citizens who died before September 21, 1987. But the opinion generated by the Act is that with a sincere apology the misconduct of the U.S. government will be understood and as the members of the different groups will be a citizen first.[12]

In conclusion, Sins of the Parentsdetailed how the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 changed how America, Americans and the U.S. government viewed national apologies and redress along with creating or effecting new policy and attitudes.  The passage of the mostly symbolic Act attempted to limit potential precedential implications to any other minority or ethnic group along with encouraging the acceptance by all citizens to understand mistakes were made but an apology will make a difference.

Citation: ^1-12 Weiner, Brian A. Sins of the Parents. (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2005) 47, 50, 61, 56, 60, 58, 80, 82, 83.

Related Articles

• Japanese Internment Memorial (seanvisser100w.wordpress.com)
• Aiko Herzig-Yoshinaga To Receive 2011 Sue Kunitomi Embrey Legacy Award at 42nd Annual Manzanar Pilgrimage (manzanarcommittee.org)