Remember how FDR executed American Nazi sympathizers?

[OnyxCollie]

268. The Japanese internment

is the subject of my thesis. I've enjoyed reading your posts. Have you written about this before?

Here's something from my lit review that is apropos to your post:

An abstract concept of particular significance to this analysis is national identity. National
identity as an abstract symbolic attachment has been shown to be a strong predictor of policy
preferences (Edelman 1964/1985, as cited in Schildkraut, 2002), makes the complex seem simple
and provides remedies for disorder (Elder & Cobb, 1983, as cited in Schildkraut, 2002), and
forms the needs and desires for citizens in regards to public policy (Selznick, 1951). Schildkraut
(2001, as cited in Schildkraut, 2002) has demonstrated that national identity as defined by white
Americans revolves around observing ancestral traditions and maintaining cultural
distinctiveness, eclipsing citizenship for what it means to be “American.”

Being American is to be a member of a status group. As there is an awareness of one’s
membership in a status group, there is also an awareness of who is not a member of the group
(Schildkraut, 2002) and to discriminate against that person accordingly (Tajfel & Turner, 1986,
as cited in Schildkraut, 2002). Discrimination based on racial and ethnic physical characteristics
is done because it is easy to do so.

Schildkraut (2002) identifies two types of national identity- incorporationism and
ethnoculturalism. Incorporationism celebrates cultural diversity and establishes a middle ground
absent of extreme cultural divisions or homogeneity. Incorporation focuses on America’s
immigration heritage and stresses the experience as a shared history. Ethnoculturalism, on the
other hand, defines national identity in America as white, European, and Protestant (Smith, 1993,
1997, as cited in Schildkraut, 2002). The national identity is an arbitrary concept, invoked in
response to political events by cultural elites who tailor the meaning to fit the situation (Altheide, 2006;
Anderson, 1991, as cited in Schildkraut, 2002; Brubaker, 1996, as cited in Schildkraut, 2002; Gellner, 1983, as cited
in Schildkraut, 2002; Hobsbawm, 1990, as cited in Schildkraut, 2002; Hutchinson & Smith,
1994, as cited in Schildkraut, 2002; Snyder & Ballentine, 1996, as cited in Schildkraut, 2002).
According to Parenti (1993), “Much of politics is the rational manipulation of irrational
symbols.”

A distinguishing feature of the mass public is the limited comprehension of democracy,
along with its attendant logical inconsistencies, and the ease to which one may be susceptible to
its manipulation by elites (Selznick, 1951). “The readiness for manipulation by symbols,
especially those permitting sado-masochistic releases, is characteristic of the mass as a crowd (p.
324). In its defense of democracy, the mass public may take action against its enemies which are
a contrary to the democratic principles they are defending. The mass public will dismiss proper
social conduct and established channels of action and resort to the most immediate forms of
response (including force) to gain immediate relief from intolerable situations.

Without direct knowledge of why unfortunate events occur, the mass public may attribute
intent to actors through speculation relying on antecedent beliefs, which may be pleasurable to
hold or unpleasant to reject (Sunstein & Vermeule, 2008). When the nation faces threats to its
security, racial and ethnic stereotypes become more powerful (Volkan, 1994, as cited in
Schildkraut, 2002). Selznick (1951) suggests that fascist elites may prime the mass public “to
break down feelings of deference for the law making body and prepare for extralegal means of
intimidation” (p. 329). According to Mendelberg (2001, as cited in Schildkraut, 2002), when
inegalitarian norms dominate society, the political elites and mass public are free to base their
attitudes and behaviors on those norms without repercussion, resulting in a convergence of
opinion. When egalitarian norms dictate behaviors, however, political elites are constrained in
their rhetoric for fear of threatening their chances for reelection. This is echoed by Hans Gerth
(1992) who stated that (i)n order to avoid unexpected and unwanted results, social and political
administrations require a deep and extensive understanding of the total equilibrium of the given
social structure’ (p. 342, as quoted in Altheide, 2006, p. 989).

As Gerth (1992) pointed out, “Since the territory dominated by the nation is typically
larger than that dominated by, say, the blood or religion, modern nationalism has had to rely
more on mass education and propaganda” (p. 338, as quoted in Altheide, 2006, p. 989). To
effectively disseminate these idea elements to the mass public, the cooperation of the media
apparatus is required. Gans (1979, as cited in McQuail, 1985) argued that media elites tend to
reinforce the established social order, though not because of self-interest or subservience to
political or corporate elites. Rather the media elites are motivated by a sense of professionalism
to report the news as they see it, or that they have views convergent with the beneficiaries of the
system. Drier (1982, as cited in McQuail, 1985) found that “the main US elite newspapers were
both the most integrated into the capitalist power structure and most inclined to adopt a
corporate-liberal perspective- an attitude of ‘responsible capitalism’” (p. 98).