# data[].attributes.headline
More context on the attack on Pear Harbor

# data[].attributes.subject
More context on the attack on Pear Harbor

# data[].attributes.body
Provides more context to what lead to the mal treatment of Japanese Americans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When Japanese bombers appeared in the skies over Pearl Harbor on the morning of December 7, 1941, the U.S. military was completely unprepared for the devastating surprise attack, which dramatically altered the course of World War II, especially in the Pacific theater. But there were several key reasons for the bombing that, in hindsight, make it seem almost inevitable.

Tensions Began During the Great Depression

Before the Pearl Harbor attack, tensions between Japan and the United States had been mounting for the better part of a decade.

The island nation of Japan, isolated from the rest of the world for much of its history, embarked on a period of aggressive expansion near the turn of the 20th century. Two successful wars, against China in 1894-95 and the Russo-Japanese War in 1904-05, fueled these ambitions, as did Japan's successful participation in World War I (1914-18) alongside the Allies.

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, Japan sought to solve its economic and demographic woes by forcing its way into China, starting in 1931 with an invasion of Manchuria. When a commission appointed by the League of Nations condemned the invasion, Japan withdrew from the international organization; it would occupy Manchuria until 1945.

In July 1937, a clash at Beijing's Marco Polo Bridge began another Sino-Japanese war. That December, after Japanese forces captured Nanjing (Nanking), the capital of the Chinese Nationalist Party, or Guomindang (Kuomintang), they proceeded to carry out six weeks of mass killings and rapes now infamous as the Nanjing Massacre.
WATCH: Pearl Harbor: Survivors Remember on HISTORY Vault
The U.S. Was Trying to Stop Japan's Global Expansion

In light of such atrocities, the United States began passing economic sanctions against Japan, including trade embargoes on aircraft exports, oil and scrap metal, among other key goods, and gave economic support to Guomindang forces. In September 1940, Japan signed the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy, the two fascist regimes then at war with the Allies.

Tokyo and Washington negotiated for months leading up to the Pearl Harbor attack, without success. While the United States hoped embargoes on oil and other key goods would lead Japan to halt its expansionism, the sanctions and other penalties actually convinced Japan to stand its ground, and stirred up the anger of its people against continued Western interference in Asian affairs.

To Japan, war with the United States had become to seem inevitable, in order to defend its status as a major world power. Because the odds were stacked against them, their only chance was the element of surprise.

Bettmann Archive/Getty Images

Destroying the Base at Pearl Harbor Would Mean Japan Controlled the Pacific

In May 1940, the United States had made Pearl Harbor the main base for its Pacific Fleet. As Americans didn't expect the Japanese to attack first in Hawaii, some 4,000 miles away from the Japanese mainland, the base at Pearl Harbor was left relatively undefended, making it an easy target.

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto spent months planning an attack that aimed to destroy the Pacific Fleet and destroy morale in the U.S. Navy, so that it would not be able to fight back as Japanese forces began to advance on targets across the South Pacific.

Japan's surprise attack on Pearl Harbor would drive the United States out of isolation and into World War II, a conflict that would end with Japan's surrender after the devastating atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.

At first, however, the Pearl Harbor attack looked like a success for Japan. Its bombers hit all eight U.S. battleships, sinking four and damaging four others, destroyed or damaged more than 300 aircraft and killed some 2,400 Americans at Pearl Harbor.

Japanese forces went on to capture a string of current and former Western colonial possessions by early 1942-including Burma (now Myanmar), British Malaya (Malaysia and Singapore), the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) and the Philippines-giving them access to these islands' plentiful natural resources, including oil and rubber.

But the Pearl Harbor attack had failed in its objective to completely destroy the Pacific Fleet. The Japanese bombers missed oil tanks, ammunition sites and repair facilities, and not a single U.S. aircraft carrier was present during the attack. In June 1942, this failure came to haunt the Japanese, as U.S. forces scored a major victory in the Battle of Midway, decisively turning the tide of war in the Pacific.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When Japanese bombers appeared in the skies over Pearl Harbor on the morning of December 7, 1941, the U.S. military was completely unprepared for the devastating surprise attack, which dramatically altered the course of World War II, especially in the Pacific theater.

# data[].attributes.headline
Picture provided is part of the damage from the attack on pearl harbor.

# data[].attributes.subject
Picture provided is part of the damage from the attack on pearl harbor.

# data[].attributes.body
edJust as the bombing of pearl harbor caused discrimination to all Japanese Americans. 9/11 caused terrible discrimination to middle eastern living in the United States. The prejudice and discrimination is still on going. Below is an article that explains the hate crimes towards Muslims. Goes to show the mal treatment of people that have nothing to do with the hate people try to show a specific group. Just as American born Japanese American citizens had to experience hate crimes towards them simply for the way they appeared.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hate Crimes Against American Muslims Most Since Post-9/11 Era (Published 2016)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some scholars believe that the violence is driven not only by the string of terrorist attacks, but also by the political vitriol from candidates like Donald J. Trump.

# data[].attributes.body
This book along with these sources goes to show the experience of those who were alive during this significant historical event as a result of world war two. Along with the actual event comes the influence and precedent these events have created for American as well as world history. Learning about this topic will hopefully create empathy to those that have experienced similar events or prevent situations like this one to be repeated. It will hopefully prevent history to repeat itself yet again.

# data[].attributes.body
Unfortunately history in America shows us that many of these groups that suffered from prejudice and stereotypes when they moved to America fail to show compassion to other groups of minorities, or immigrants. Just as Irish and Italian immigrants struggled, they many times created the same difficult transition to other immigrants such as Asian, Latino. In many cases in United States history instead of immigrant communities coming together they isolate themselves even more in an attempt to be above at least one group.

# data[].attributes.body
Questionnaire Japanese Americans were forced to fill out before internment.

# data[].attributes.body
The term Issei is used to define first generation Japanese immigrants. The second generation Japanese immigrants are called Nisei. Lastly, the third generation Japanese immigrants go by Sansei.

# data[].attributes.body
In 1988 the president at the time, Ronald Reagan signed a bill that ensured Japanese American citizens that had gone through the troubles of internment camps twenty thousand dollars. However, given all of the emotional, and physical damage this to no Japanese American would justify the actions of the United States government. Aside from the emotional and physical damage was the economic damage, Japanese American citizens in most cases lost their business when they were forced to leave their homes. Many struggled to find jobs after, to say that twenty thousand dollars would make things right is a slap to the face of the people that underwent this experience. Attached is an article going more in depth about the government bill, as well as the political scene during this time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
subscribe to Code Switch podcast

subscribe to Code Switch podcast

This month marks the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. shared his dream for a more equal America. But there's another anniversary looming: 25 years ago this week, the Japanese-American community celebrated a landmark victory in its own struggle for civil rights.

In 1988, President Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act to compensate more than 100,000 people of Japanese descent who were incarcerated in internment camps during World War II. The legislation offered a formal apology and paid out $20,000 in compensation to each surviving victim. The law won congressional approval only after a decade-long campaign by the Japanese-American community.

To mark the 25th anniversary of its passage, the Civil Liberties Act was put on display at the National Archives alongside the original Executive Order 9066, which authorized the internment. For senior curator Bruce Bustard, it was a powerful juxtaposition of the journey from a wrong to a right.

When she saw the Executive Order in a glass case, Marielle Tsukamoto, who grew up in an internment camp, said she had "shivers up and down [her] back" because she realized the order ruined lives.

To some, it might seem like a bureaucratic government document, but according to Bustard, that's precisely what makes this exhibition such a potent reminder of what federal documents really mean. "They are filled with legalese, and again that to me reinforces the idea that from these sorts of legal decisions that our government makes, these kinds of consequences can happen."

The Japanese-American internment camps were often nothing more than makeshift barracks, with families and children cramped together behind barbed wires. Most of the internees were U.S. citizens from the West Coast who were forced to abandon or liquidate their businesses when war relocation authorities escorted them to the camps.

John Tateishi says the experience was both humiliating and disorienting. "We came out of these camps with a sense of shame and guilt, of having been considered betrayers of our country." He says that after the war most families never spoke about it. "There were no complaints, no big rallies or demands for justice because it was not the Japanese way."

But decades later and inspired by the civil rights movement, the Japanese American Citizens League launched a contentious campaign for redress. It divided the community along generational lines. Tateishi became a leader of the movement.

"You have to sometimes bring your community dragging and screaming behind you, but you better have strong convictions that what you're doing is right," he says.

In 1980, Congress responded by establishing a commission to investigate the legacy of the camps. After extensive interviews and personal testimonies from victims, the commission issued its final report, calling the incarceration a "grave injustice" motivated by "racial prejudice, war hysteria and the failure of political leadership."

Japanese-Americans then serving in Congress, including Robert Matsui and Norm Mineta, helped turn that report into legislative language, providing for tax-free compensation and a formal apology. Mineta has served in two presidential Cabinets, but he says that bipartisan effort remains one of his proudest achievements.

"Today I just feel that Congress is so polarized that I'm not sure a grassroots movement like this would have the kind of impact that we see resulting in the signing of the bill by President Reagan in 1988," he says.

Tateishi says the redress campaign was less about the compensation for those who had already suffered and more about the next generation of Americans.

"There is a saying in Japanese culture, 'kodomo no tame ni,' which means, 'for the sake of the children.' And for us running this campaign, that had much to do with it," he saysi. "It's the legacy we're handing down to them and to the nation to say that, 'You can make this mistake, but you also have to correct it - and by correcting it, hopefully not repeat it again.' "

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
From Wrong To Right: A U.S. Apology For Japanese Internment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
More than 100,000 people of Japanese descent were put in camps during World War II. Decades later and inspired by the civil rights movement, Japanese-Americans launched a campaign for redress that culminated in an official apology. The community marks the 25th anniversary of that victory this week.

# data[].attributes.body
Even today many Americans fear immigrants of certain backgrounds or religious groups. In my personal belief the fear is born out of fear of the unknown as Americans lack desire to understand groups that they do not know. From that unknown is born prejudice and misconceptions. Attached is an article that goes to show the treatment of a different group that experiences similarities to those of Japanese immigrants during post world war two.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many are suspicious of those who practice Islam. Many more are trying to reach out.

Whatever Muslims may be in Trump's America, they're not invisible. Everyone-the president, pundits, pollsters-keeps talking about the religious minority group, which makes up roughly 1 percent of the country's population. According to new data from the Pew Research Center, the intense political focus on Islam has yielded a sort of dual life for American Muslims.

On one hand, many Americans are suspicious of their beliefs and motives, and Muslims perceive widespread hostility toward their faith. At the same time, experiences of discrimination haven't necessarily changed that much, and many other Americans have reached out to affirm their Muslim neighbors. President Trump may have said he wants to ban Muslims from entering America, but it would be impossible to take the America out of Muslims: Despite heightened anxiety around their place in U.S. culture, their experiences largely mirror those of other religious groups.

American Muslims are notoriously difficult to poll. Roughly 58 percent were born abroad, and another 18 percent have at least one immigrant parent. Many of them aren't proficient enough in English to complete a lengthy survey, and the population is religiously and racially diverse. Muslims are also geographically spread out: Unlike, say, Catholics, their communities are not centrally organized. Despite these challenges, Pew completed 1,001 telephone interviews between January and April, translating their survey into Arabic, Farsi, and Urdu to facilitate participation by non-native English speakers. While the sample is relatively small, it offers a rough look at a demographic group that is hard to track.

The researchers found that Muslims perceive significant bias against them. Seventy-five percent of respondents said there's "a lot" of discrimination against Muslims in the U.S. Sixty percent of Muslims-and 68 percent of Muslim women-said media coverage of Muslims is unfair. And when respondents were asked about the most important problems facing U.S. Muslims today, the most popular answers included "discrimination, racism, [and] prejudice," "Muslims [being] viewed as terrorists," and "Trump's attitudes [and] policies toward Muslims." In general, American Muslims are not fans of the president. Three-quarters of the respondents said Trump is "unfriendly" toward Muslims in the U.S., and 65 percent disapprove of what he's doing in office-slightly less than the percentage of Muslims who disapproved of George W. Bush on a 2007 version of this survey.

It's true that a lot of people seem suspicious of Muslims. Half of Americans say Islam is not part of "mainstream American society," and 41 percent say Islam encourages violence more than other faiths. These numbers are strongest among Republicans and white evangelicals: More than half of each group said there's a great deal or fair amount of extremism among U.S. Muslims, for example, compared to 35 percent of all Americans who said the same thing. Sixty-five percent of Republicans and 72 percent of white evangelicals also said Islam and democracy naturally conflict. (Interestingly, 30 percent of Muslims said the same thing.)

But the report reveals other layers of Muslim life that complicate a straightforward narrative of victimhood. Almost half of respondents said someone had reached out to express support for their religion within the past year, compared to 37 percent in 2011 and 32 percent in 2007. Admittedly, these performances of allyship and optimism can be fraught; Muslims might prefer seamless acceptance to handshakes and earnestness from well-meaning neighbors.

Muslims are more likely than other Americans to believe that people who work hard can get ahead and succeed; 70 percent said they believe this is true. And 92 percent of Muslims say they're proud to be Americans-roughly the same as the general public.

Although two-thirds of Muslims identify as Democrats, they may have more in common with other religiously orthodox Americans than secular liberals. Over the past decade, Muslims' growing acceptance of LGBT people has roughly mirrored trends among Christians, even as both groups have been slower to support homosexuality than the general American public. According to Pew, Christians and Muslims are equally likely to attend worship services weekly and to say religion is important to them.

People feel an abiding sense of dread. Meanwhile, life basically continues as usual.

It's not clear from this report that concrete experiences of discrimination have become more common under Trump, either. Experiences of most kinds of religious discrimination are roughly flat compared to rates reported in 2007 and 2011, when Pew previously surveyed American Muslims. Nineteen percent of respondents said they'd been called an offensive name in the past year, compared to 22 percent in 2011 and 15 percent in 2007, and the pattern and numbers were roughly similar for Muslims who said they'd been singled out by airport-security officials. Only 10 percent of respondents said they'd been called out by law-enforcement officials in the past year, down from 13 percent in 2011. And 6 percent said they'd been physically threatened or attacked, the same level of physical discrimination reported in 2011. Right now, it's not possible to verify these reports against data like the FBI's hate-crime statistics-the only real national system for tracking discrimination against religious minorities-since the Bureau's data is currently only available through 2015.

What has gone up are Muslims' reports of being "treated with suspicion," Pew found: 32 percent of respondents said they'd encountered this within the past year, compared to 28 percent in 2011. This stat, more than any other, speaks to American Muslim life under Trump. People feel an abiding sense of dread, hostility, and discomfort. Meanwhile, life largely continues as usual.

Ultimately, perceptions matter. In April, I spent an afternoon following Asma Akhras, a 40-something Muslim woman who decided to run for local office for the first time in part because of the 2016 election. She described a feeling similar to how people sometimes talk about ambiguous gender bias: Is it sexism, or is it me? When she knocked on a door and an old man yelled at her, it was impossible to tell whether it was because of her hijab or because he was simply rude. In the end, it doesn't really matter if social scientists can precisely measure what was going on in that interaction, or how Trump has changed the lives of Muslim Americans. It still ends up as a cloud of doubt over an otherwise placid suburban life.

Related Video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Much Discrimination Do Muslims Face in America?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many are suspicious of those who practice Islam. Many more are trying to reach out. Whatever Muslims may be in Trump's America, they're not invisible. Everyone-the president, pundits, pollsters-keeps talking about the religious minority group, which makes up roughly 1 percent of the country's population.

# data[].attributes.body
United States portrays a vision in which they extend open arms to people off all places, the country claims to be the land of opportunity for all that are in worse conditions in other countries. Historically however, United States has been everything but welcoming to immigrants. Whether its those of Asian descent, Italian, Irish, South American, African. People of all of these regions have experienced intense racism when they immigrated in large quantities during specific time periods. It has taken lots of time and effort of those who are not racist to break down stereotypes and destroy stigma to create a less hostile environment for people of different backgrounds, and even then much racism, and hate still goes on within the nation to foreigners. Below is an article showing time periods along with groups of specific immigrants. This shows other groups that have had to experience similar treatment to that of Japanese Americans post world war two.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Leer en español

Oddly for a nation made up mostly of immigrants, the United States has always had a problem with immigration. Long before President Trump was quoted saying, "Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?" generations of Americans have advocated limiting immigration to the country.

In the 1800s, the Irish were a favorite target, and newspaper want ads commonly included the phrase "No Irish need apply." Later in the 19th century, anti-immigration sentiment was codified in federal laws that singled out Asians. Subsequent federal laws targeted Italians and southern Europeans.

Scholars have identified three waves of immigration: the first era, the second era and the current era. As the U.S. once again debates who should be let into the country, perhaps it's time to review major immigration laws passed from 1870 to the present day. Some tried to bring order to the immigration process. Others aimed to keep out those perceived as un-American.

FIRST ERA

The 'free white persons' and Asian 'coolies'

0 200 400 600 800 thousand immigrants 1889 1880 1870 1860 1850 1840 Immigration law passed Immigration law passed

Poor and unskilled immigrants from Northern Europe and Asia poured into the United States in the mid-1800s. Most of the European immigrants were German and Irish, and under the law they were considered "free white persons" able to achieve citizenship.

Citizenship wasn't an option for the growing numbers of Chinese and Asian immigrants settling on the West Coast. A cheap source of labor for mines, farms and railways, the Chinese were called "coolies." The word originally meant "unskilled laborer," but became a slur hurled at workers who labored for low wages or came to the U.S. as indentured laborers. Chinese women were largely assumed to be prostitutes.

Germany Ireland United Kingdom Canada and British North America Norway-Sweden 4.2 million 3.2 2.5 1 883,000

In Los Angeles, the backlash against Asians culminated in 1871 with the Chinese Massacre. A mob of more than 500 white men killed at least 18 Chinese men and boys near downtown. No one was ever convicted of the killings.

The growing animus against Asians across the country led to discriminatory laws that would remain on the books for decades.

"[The Chinese] strengthened our nation's infrastructure, only to be prosecuted when their labor was seen as competition and when the dirtiest work was done" - Rep. Mike Honda (D-San Jose), during debate in 2012 before the passage of House Resolution 683 expressing regret for the treatment of Chinese migrants

SECOND ERA

Southern Europeans not welcome

0 0.5 1 1.5 million immigrants 1924 1920 1910 1900 1890 Immigration law passed Immigration law passed

During the next wave of immigration, from the late 1800s to the 1920s, immigration laws continued to target Asians, but also tried to discourage immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe.

Roger Waldinger, a UCLA distinguished professor of sociology, said the laws passed during this era "set a low limit on total immigration from the Eastern Hemisphere and virtually stopped migration from Asia."

Italy Austria-Hungary Russia and Poland Canada and British North America United Kingdom 4.3 million 3.7 3 1.7 1.5

The poor, the sick and those espousing certain political beliefs were barred from entry into the U.S. under other new laws. Laws discouraging immigration from Southern Europe - mainly from Italy - reflected widespread anti-Catholic sentiment. Italians were frequent targets of abuse and one of the most infamous mass lynchings in U.S. history occurred in New Orleans, where 11 Italians were attacked and killed by a mob in 1891.

After World War I, immigration decreased dramatically with the passage of more restrictive legislation. Permanent residency status grants went from 1.2 million in 1914 to a little more than 110,000 in 1918.

CURRENT ERA

Secure the border and build the wall

0 1 2 million immigrants 2015 2010 2000 1990 1980 1970 1965 Immigration law passed Immigration law passed

The immigration control system in place today began to take shape with passage of the Hart-Celler Act in 1965, which eliminated the quota system based on national origin.

Mexico China India Philippines Korea 16.2 million 3.1 2.7 2.3 1.7

Reflecting larger, global conditions, later laws addressed refugees, border security or illegal immigration. The most far-reaching legislation was the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, a law that, depending on the point of view, is hailed as groundbreaking or denounced as a huge mistake. In addition to immigration laws passed by Congress, two executive actions by President Obama also prompted praise and criticism.

Immigration under the Trump presidency

President Trump, who made cracking down on illegal immigration a centerpiece of his campaign, has stepped up deportation efforts and continues to call for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

In a series of executive actions, Trump has also tried to temporarily halt refugee resettlement and bar travel from six Muslim-majority countries. The motivation driving these efforts, Trump says, is national security.

Trump's executive actions continue to be challenged in the courts, and how those cases will be resolved is anybody's guess.

But one thing is certain. The nation's demographics will continue to change and immigration, no doubt, will remain part of the national conversation.

According to Pew Research Center studies, in less than 40 years, there will be no ethnic majority group in the U.S., and by 2065, Asians are projected to become the largest immigrant group.

Sources: Migration Policy Institute, Pew Research Center, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian

Credits: Additional programming by Chris Keller. Library of Congress, Historical Collections, Security Pacific National Bank, Migration Policy Institute, Los Angeles Times Library

More from the Los Angeles Times

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
America's love-hate relationship with immigrants

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Oddly for a nation made up mostly of immigrants, the United States has always had a problem with immigration. Long before President Trump called for building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, generations of Americans have advocated limiting immigration to the country. Most recently, Trump endorsed a plan to cut legal immigration by half.

# data[].attributes.body
One of the biggest themes that can be seen throughout No-No Boy is identity. In many cases its the search for identity due to the feeling of lacking personal belonging. Most characters feel as though they have their identity or at least an identity that they can identify with. Ichiro's mom strongly identifies as Japanese, so much to the point that when her vision of Japan is shattered through the war, at first she chooses to completely deny the truth, and when her vision is destroyed. She finds an inability to identify with japan and it drives her to suicide as she no longer knows her place in the world. Ichiro's brother is quick to identify as American as the young man grew up in the United States and he feels as though he has no connection to Japan, with the dismissal of Japan, Ichiro's brother feels as though he will belong more as an American. Ichiro struggles with the sense of identity he fails to find his place in society as he doesn't feel connected to Japan in the same way that his mother is. Yet, he doesn't feel as though he is American and because of this he is stuck in a borderland, one in which he constantly finds himself placing guilt on himself. Attached is a long article on historical context of the struggles Japanese Americans primarily on the west coast experienced after the war. Along with the impact done to generations after world war two.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A pilot project was launched after two Sansei sisters, Caroline and Theresa Nishi, addressed the Nisei audience at an Eastern District Council Meeting of the Japanese American Citizens League. They were pleading for assistance with what they called their "identity crisis."

# data[].attributes.body
Attached is an image showing the ways in which white Americans would be publicly racists against Japanese Americans.

# data[].attributes.body
During world war two, The United States government deemed that although Japanese American citizens did not pose a serious threat to the United States they needed to place these citizen in internment camps. Some of their justifications included, knowing ship patterns of U.S. boats, sabotaging aerial strikes, and spying. All Japanese citizens were forced into these camp sites, the conditions were not good to say the least. When being placed into these interment camps people were required to fill out a questionnaire. At the end of the questionnaire were two questions one being along the lines of are you willing to serve for the United States in the fight against Japan. The other being if one was willing to swear against the emperor of Japan as well as the nation. The response "no" to both of these questions is what created the slang "No-no boy". When Japanese American citizens returned from internments, all did not return to the way in which it was before war broke out. Many Japanese American citizens had to give up their business before they had to leave, on top of this they faced countless racism, sometimes even against those who fought for the United States. Below is attached a link to the posters that would be published in areas in the west coast were Japanese American citizens were asked to leave.

# data[].attributes.body
Summary: No-No Boy is about a young Japanese American that is returning home after serving two years in prison post interment camp. When Ichiro returns home he struggles with his personal relationships as he returns to a house divided. His mother who is a proud Japanese citizen who also believes Japan won the war. Versus Ichiro's younger brother who feels American and shame that Ichiro refused to fight in the war for the United States. Even outside of his personal relationships Ichiro struggles to find himself as he fails to find personal identity. The following article provides a summary of the book.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional academic writers. You can view samples of our professional work here.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.

Published: Mon, 5 Dec 2016

Right from the beginning of John Okada's No No Boy there is the juxtaposition of the Japanese-Americans returning from internment camps at the end of World War II and the Japanese-Americans that pledged themselves to the U.S. Military returning from service overseas. Ichiro Yamada, the protagonist, is facing a personal dilemma of national identity. He blames his stubborn Japanese heritage for him getting locked up, and the Americans were the ones that did the locking. His parents speak only Japanese in defiance to American influence. Despite being born and raised in America, Ichiro claims to be a Japanese nationalist and is consequentially imprisoned. His mother claims that the entire family is wholly Japanese, although Ichiro has never been to Japan. This generational conflict that's common in immigrant families is the spur for Ichiro's identity crisis throughout the novel.

The one exception to the hostility of the generational split lies in Ichiro's friendship with Kenji. Kenji is a decorated war hero that was rewarded for his military efforts with material possessions from the federal government. He doesn't condemn Ichiro for his decision. He instead provides Ichiro a valuable glimpse at the extravagant reward of assimilation, but the image is tainted with the gangrenous injury he sustained in the service. Kenji's character is polarized by that of Freddie. He is an old friend of Ichiro's and a fellow No No Boy that is determined to run from his problems with society and his family instead of dealing with them rationally like an adult.

Okada associates everything maternal in the story with Japanese loyalty. Ichiro blames his Japanese nationalist mother as the reason that he became a No No Boy in the first place. She is a nationalistic elitist in every sense of the word. She refuses to learn English during the thirty years that she lives in Seattle and doesn't even believe the numerous reports that mighty Japan has lost the war to the Americans. To her, assimilation equals death. By contrast, Ichiro's example of successful integration, Kenji, has a superb family life without a mother. When Mrs. Yamada finally comes to terms with Japan's loss in the war, she drowns herself in the bathtub. The rest of the family is relieved from the alleviated expectations. Ichiro identifies his mother early on as the solitary force preventing him from reproachfully integrating into popular American culture, but her death provides a passing of the torch in Japanese nationalism and he soon finds out that his problems are of his own making.

When Ichiro comes back to Seattle, things are not what he expects. Since he was so abruptly rounded up and shipped off to an internment camp, "to proveâ€¦that they weren't American enough to be trusted," he anticipates discrimination among mainstream culture, but he is met with what is developing into the most accepting era in American history (p. 153). The civil rights movement is just around the corner. The hostility that he expects from white Americans doesn't happen. The only bullying he meets is at the hands of other Japanese-Americans.

Every powerful white man that Ichiro runs into receives a good impression from him. His old Professor Brown urges him to come back to the university. Mr. Carrick offers him a job on the spot at an engineering office in Portland. Both of them are very sympathetic for what he has endured and disagree with the injustice of the whole affair, yet Ichiro rejects all them. He could assimilate if he wanted to, but he doesn't because he is convinced that since he once rejected the United States that he is forever intolerable to it. He could have been an engineer in Oregon and ascend the social ranks. No longer would he have been a lower-class immigrant, but a shining member of the middle class. Instead, he chooses to maintain his social immobility and cultural isolation. This was a common feeling during this time, as Kenji puts it:

"They bitched and hollered when the government put them in camps and put real fences around them, but now they're doing the same damn thing to themselves." (p. 164)

Post-war Japanese-Americans are forcing segregation upon themselves. Most Americans, at least in this novel, prove entirely compliant in moving forwards from the past from which they came. They are willing to bring cultural diversity into their schools and workplaces, but the Japanese-Americans seem insistent on continuing their oppression.

Early in the novel, Ichiro cites the guilt of his disloyalty to the United States as a reason for not accepting any of these offers. He hasn't fought for the country and doesn't feel like he's earned such lavish opportunities, so he leaves them for truly Americanized people to capitalize on. This reverence exhibited by Ichiro for American culture and those that it approves counteracts his attempts to remain loyal to his Japanese ancestry. He externalizes his need to be devoted to Japan onto his mother, but it doesn't end when she dies. He realizes that her strict codes of Japanese loyalty were not the only thing keeping him from assimilating. Ichiro turns down another promising job offer at the Christian Reclamation Center where the owner had already hired another No No Boy.

It is no coincidence that Mrs. Yamada's suicide is juxtaposed with Kenji's death. The chapter in which both events are contained is the turning point in the novel. Mrs. Yamada dies because of her refusal to integrate into American society and Kenji dies from gangrene in an injury he suffered during his attempts to integrate into American society. The two extreme examples of national identity can no longer survive. Kenji tells Ichiro on his death bed that ethnic differences should be transcended to blur the lines of racial distinction, and therefore prove categorization difficult. Ichiro seems to take Kenji's advice to heart when he plans on becoming a true American with a house and a wife and kids, only to put himself on trial moments later for his treasonous intentions. He has also inherited the voice of his mother in his brain in addition to Kenji's - a rampant incompatibility. These opposing viewpoints eventually begin to balance each other out, and Ichiro realizes that he is neither Japanese nor American.

Ichiro began the novel concerned with improving his public image, and he gradually changes his concern to self-respect. The problem with his initial mindset is that self-esteem is determined by the will of the state. Nations create their own hegemonic value systems in this way to establish cultural standards. The notion of free choice is illusory. It is misery to continually cater to the evaluations of anonymous strangers. To project the lives of others onto oneself is to completely hide one's own personality. Ichiro is ashamed of his disloyalty to America. He acts as if every white American thinks that he is a traitor for not demonstrating himself to the country, but his fixation is evidence that he cares more on the matter than any white character in the story. With the deaths of his mother and Kenji, Ichiro becomes startlingly aware of the importance of his self-respect, since he no longer has his mother to blame his problems on or Kenji to live out his Americanized daydreams. Ichiro begins to resist integration because, to him, it would mean forfeiting his identity in lieu of conformity. He concerns himself only with his own opinions and thinks independently of the cultural groups which surround him, as Kenji suggested he do.

The symbolism of Ichiro's altered ideals is apparent when comparing the start and end scenes of the novel. It starts with Ichiro walking out into the downtown Plaza as he contemplates his own path of nationalism, and ends with Ichiro ducking down a dark narrow alley. That path less travelled is precisely the path that Ichiro has chosen to take in his life. He chose not to blaze the beaten paths of American ideals or Japanese elitism that everyone seemed to be treading on, but rather a small hidden passageway tucked in between the two avenues.

Throughout the novel, Emi remains an image of normalized American domesticity, and yet another failed opportunity at Americanization for Ichiro. Much like his wasted job offers, Ichiro thinks that he doesn't deserve Emi because her husband is in the military. When she devotes herself to him, they go out dancing and Ichiro fancies the thought of being with a woman that other men want. His fixation on the men that find her attractive rather than the attractive girl herself gives the scene masculine undertones. Emi alone is not enough to sway Ichiro to commit himself to her, but the sheer interest of other men provokes Ichiro think that he has a real catch on his hands. This is a prime example of Ichiro succumbing to the opinions of the general public in America instead of listening to his own self-respect and his own opinions.

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Looking At John Okadas No No Boy English Literature Essay

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional academic writers. You can view samples of our professional work here. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.