In Defense of Internment - Response To In Defense of Internment

Response To In Defense of Internment

There was considerable media interest in the book especially on the West Coast of the U.S. and Hawaii, where the impact of internment in World War II was greatest. It made the New York Times Best Seller list in September 2004. The book proved to be highly controversial, with civil liberties and Asian-American groups in particular being harshly critical of the book's conclusions. John Tateishi, the Executive Director of the Japanese American Citizens League issued a media release on August 24, 2004 calling the book "a desperate attempt to impugn the loyalty of Japanese Americans during World War II to justify harsher governmental policies today in the treatment of Arab and Muslim Americans." Fred Korematsu, the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case Korematsu v. United States which upheld the constitutionality of internment, wrote that "ccording to Malkin, it is OK to take away an entire ethnic group's civil rights because some individuals are suspect. It is painful to see reopened for serious debate the question of whether the government was justified in imprisoning Japanese Americans during World War II. It was my hope that my case and the cases of other Japanese American internees would be remembered for the dangers of racial and ethnic scapegoating."

Reviewing the book for Reason, Eric L. Muller of the University of North Carolina Law School wrote that "the evidence Malkin deploys is--at best--mere speculation. This speculation might be worth a moment's reflection if Malkin also addressed the voluminous historical research that has shown the impact of racism, nativism, political pressure, economic jealousies, and war panic on the government's policies toward Japanese Americans. But Malkin does not so much as mention any of that evidence, except to say that a reader can find it elsewhere in 'pedantic tomes' and 'educational propaganda.' She dismisses what she cannot rebut." Thirty-nine scholars and professional researchers signed a letter condemning Malkin's book for "blatant violation of professional standards of objectivity and fairness".