The Nip:
My fault...in your original post, I took your use of the word "accept" in a more literal sense. As in, the only people to "allow" them to enter Hawaii.
You are absolutely correct about the chronology of Asian immigration to Hawaii. Koreans, for example, were basically thought of as scabs and brought in as such to break up "Japanese unions" in Hawaii.
But as you acknowledge already, CWL meant "accept" in a different context.
By the way, it is my firm belief that ethnocentrism preserves culture; ALL distinctive groups hold ethnocentric views regarding their cultural identity.
A dictionary definition of "ethnocentrism" is the "belief in the superiority of one's own ethnic group." It is also an "overriding concern with race" (per
www.dictionary.com).
The idea that one ethnic group is inherently superior to another is faulty and unscientific, and usually based on ignorance, fear and jealousy. The more educated people are, the less likely they are to hold "ethnocentric" views.
It is also my firm belief that those who vehemently criticize ethnocentricm do so because they, themselves, lack a cultural identity to embrace (or the means/knowledge and capacity to do so).
My goodness, you love inversion, don't you? I vehemently criticize ethnocentrism, because it is unscientifc, flawed and wrong. I happen to hold a very strong cultural identity - I am an American, pure and simple. I am a product of the American culture, which allows for many ethnicities to coexist and build a prosperous and free society.
For me, whether or not you hold cretinous arguments has nothing to do with the fact that you are a Japanese- or Asian-American, but everything to do with the content of your character and the apparent limits of your education/knowledge.
sixgun_symphony:
If FDR left Asia to the Asians, would the Japanese have attacked Pearl Harbour? Probably not.
You mean if FDR left Asia to the Japanese? Who knows. Maybe the Japanese imperialists would have been happy to enslave the millions of Asians and "leave it at that."
Using your logic, should we have left Europe to Europeans (Germans)? And when we are confronted by the alliance of the now Asian superpower of Japan and the European superpower of Germany, who'd have stood with us? Mexico?
The wars against Communist forces in Korea and Vietnam would have been avoided as Japan rather than the United States would have been engaged in there.
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe instead of fighting commies, we'd be fighting German Nazis and Japanese imperialists, now with more resources. Or maybe we'd allied ourselves with the now beleaguered Soviet Union and fight the other two. Or maybe if we still kept our heads buried in the sand ("leave Eurasia - the Soviet Union - to Eurasians - Germans and Japanese"), we'd be all alone against an alliance of global tyranny.
I think Charles Lindbergh was right about America First style armed nuetrality.
Lindbergh was no geopolitical strategist. People really ought to stick to things they know about (for him, that'd been flying and fame).
