On October 5, 1937 (Bryson, 1975), President Roosevelt presented the quarantine

speech as a response to the Empire of Japan’s attack on China to conquer it (Jacobs, 1962). The

Empire of Japan had violated the Briand-Kellogg Pact that made war illegal (Briand-Kellogg Pact,

1928) and the Nine Power Treaty that guaranteed the sovereignty of national affairs and

territory of China (Nine Power Treaty, 1922). For Roosevelt, this was an indication that the

Empire of Japan was a threat to the United States too (Roosevelt, 1937). For this reason,

Roosevelt presented the quarantine speech to communicate to the American people “the

realities of the international crisis” (Jacobs, 1962, 484).

The quarantine speech drew immediate questions as too its exact meaning (Haight,

1971). At the center of the controversy was what President Roosevelt meant by “quarantine,”

and more specifically, what President Roosevelt meant when he said, “It seems to be

unfortunately true that the epidemic of world lawlessness is spreading. When an epidemic of

physical disease starts to spread, the community approves and joins in a quarantine of the

patients in order to protect the health and community against the spread of the disease.”

While Roosevelt stated that “quarantine” does not mean “sanctions” (Borg, 424), a

popular interpretation is that the speech indicated a sharp change from isolationist policy and

anticipated the use of economic sanctions (Bryson, 1975) because the Empire of Japan was a

threat. However, other scholars see the speech as an indication that Roosevelt was pursuing a

variety of options to avoid catastrophe, rather than, viewing it as indicating an abandonment of

isolationism (Borg, 1957). Perhaps more perplexing, there is debate as to why Roosevelt later

rejected positions in the speech for which there are not agreements (Bryson, 1975).

Because the controversy centers on isolationist policy, analysts of the speech miss that

the speech indicates Roosevelt anticipated the use of “sanctions,” a quarantine, against threats

posed by the Empire of Japan and that he did not reject the positions he took in the speech.

First, Roosevelt’s rhetoric constructed threats that the Empire of Japan posed and a

determination to defeat them. Second, Roosevelt’s rhetoric built group rights for the United

States and Americans that were used to defeat the threats.

In this paper I will argue, the Manzanar internment camp for Japanese in the United

States during World War II testifies, the quarantine speech is an indication Roosevelt

anticipated the use of “sanctions,” a quarantine, against the threats posed by the Empire of

Japan and he did not reject the positions he took in the quarantine speech. This is because,

first, Manzanar was a quarantine that witnesses sanctions to defeat the threats posed by the

Empire of Japan constructed in the quarantine speech. And second, Manzanar beholds the

group rights built in the quarantine speech. Therefore, I will analyze the quarantine speech in

relation to Manzanar so that the quarantine speech has its proper place in history.

To make my argument, first, I will analyze the quarantine speech to present Roosevelt’s

had a determination to defeat threats posed by the Empire of Japan. Second, I will use Jack

Donnelly’s liberal human rights theory and Kenneth Burke as a guide to explore rights for the

United States. This leads to asking, why should rhetorical scholars care? The answer guides the

remainder of the paper. Third, I will use Walter Fisher as a guide to expand the threats that the

Empire of Japan posed and the determination to defeat them. I will then use Fisher and Burke

to explain why and how a rhetorical analysis can be done to find Roosevelt’s interpretation of

what he wanted to defeat because it was constructed in the quarantine speech. Fourth, I will

explain how and why Roosevelt could defeat what he wanted with the group rights his rhetoric

built for the United States and Americans. I will then explain how a rhetorical analysis can be

done to find the group rights built. Fifth, I will provide a description of the Manzanar

internment camp for Japanese in the United States during World War II. Sixth, I will apply the

findings from the analysis of the quarantine speech for Roosevelt’s interpretation of what he

wanted to defeat, and the findings from the analysis of the group rights built to swear, the

Manzanar internment camp for Japanese in the United States during World War II testifies, the

quarantine speech is an indication Roosevelt anticipated the use of sanctions against the

threats posed by the Empire of Japan and he did not reject the positions he took in the

quarantine speech.

The construction of threats the Empire of Japan posed and the determination to defeat them:

President Roosevelt communicated “the hopes for [humankind] for a continuing era of

international peace were raised to great heights when more than sixty nations solemnly

pledged themselves not to resort to arms in furtherance of their national aims and policies.”

Although the United States was loyal to the pledge and “tranquilly and peacefully [carried] on

the ethics and arts of civilization,” Roosevelt was “compelled to contrast [the peace in the

United States] with very different scenes being enacted in other parts of the world.” In these

scenes, other peoples and nations, particularly, the Empire of Japan, violated treaties “through

unjustified interference in the internal affairs of other nations or the invasion of alien territory”

for the purpose of “greed and power for supremacy.” Because there could not be peace “either

within nations or between nations” except under right ways of behaving “adhered to by all”

peoples and nations, the foundations of a peaceful civilization, “the landmarks and traditions

which have marked the progress of civilization toward a condition of law, order, and justice

[were] being wiped away.” In other words, the Empire of Japan’s wrong behavior of violating

the sovereignty of national affairs and territory created a scene were the foundations of peace:

law, order, and justice, were threatened in the world.

Even though the Empire of Japan behaved wrong “in other parts of the world,” their

wrong behaviors were cause of “grave concern and anxiety” for the United States. This was

because “there is a solidarity and interdependence about the modern world, both technically

and morally, which makes it impossible for any nation to completely isolate itself from

economic and political upheavals in the rest of the world, especially when such upheavals

appear to be spreading and not declining.” Further, this was because the “lawlessness” was an

“epidemic,” a “contagion,” that “[spread]” to “engulf states and peoples remote from the

original scene of hostilities.” In other words, the Empire of Japan’s attitudes and wrong

behavior of violating the sovereignty of national affairs and territory, created a scene that

included the United States, and threatened United States’ foundations of peace because their

attitudes and wrong behaviors spread like a disease and would spread to the United States.

Roosevelt wanted “no one [to] imagine that America will escape” the “state of international

anarchy and instability.” Therefore, the “hopes for peace” gave way to a “haunting fear” of the

Empire of Japan’s lawlessness that spread.

It is important to point out that because verbal action creates a dialectic, people do not

just exist in some state of existence (Burke, 33). In other words, the Empire of Japan did not just

“exist” in a state of wrong behaviors; they also existed in a state of right behaviors. The

importance of this will become clear later in the paper.

Roosevelt stated it was his “determination to pursue a policy of peace.”Because “there

can be no stability or peace either within nations or between nations except under laws and

moral standards adhered to by all,” “those who cherish their freedom and recognize and

respect the equal right of their neighbors to be free and live in peace,” must work “for the

triumph of law and moral principals.”Further, this policy would “[respect] the rights and

liberties of other” while putting an end to acts of international aggression.” We can conclude,

this means, Roosevelt’s policy was to defeat the spread of the Empire of Japan’s attitudes and

wrong ways of behaving-the right attitudes and ways of behaving according to the Empire of

Japan-, and defeat them from spreading, while respecting the sovereignty of national affairs

and territory of other nations. If this “lawlessness” was defeated, a new scene of peace and

stability and confidence could prevail for the world. Roosevelt thought they could be defeated

by right ways of behaving adhered to by all. Further, Roosevelt thought “lawlessness” could be

defeated with a “quarantine.”

Exploring “Rights” for the United States:

According to Roosevelt, the United States must be “aroused to the cardinal necessity of

honoring sanctity of treaties” while defeating the wrong ways of behaving because the

sovereignty of national affairs and territory is a right. In the modern era, most rights work has

focused on liberal human rights theory (Donnelly). Although the sovereignty of national affairs

and territory was not provided as a right for the United States because it is a human right for

individuals to prevent state abuses, Jack Donnelly’s liberal human rights theory can be used as a

guide to explore the United States’ right to the sovereignty of national affairs and territory.

According to Roosevelt, the United States is a member of a modern global society

because the United States is intertwined morally and technically with other nations. Because of

this, the United States has performances, and other nations have performances, that uphold

values, to govern the relationship between, and help to form, nations belonging to an organized

global society and an organized global society. Some of these performances, such as the

sovereignty of national affairs and territory, are rights codified by the laws of an organized

global society. However, there are other performances that are rights because they are agency.

If there were not other performances that are rights because they are agency, the relationship

between the United States and other nations would “exist,” and some values would “not

exist.”Agency for what though?

Based on an analysis of what Roosevelt thought the Empire of Japan’s attitudes and

states of mind were directed toward when they violated the sovereignty of national affairs and

territory, we can conclude United States’ rights are based on conceptions of the values of

peace, law, order, and justice, for the purpose of world economy, world security, and world

humanity. Rights then, are: United States’ agency to uphold peace, law, order, and justice for

world economy, world security, world humanity. These rights are performances that govern

the relationship between, and help to form, nations belonging to an organized global society,

and an organized global society, to uphold peace, law, order, and justice. This means the rights

change the scene and the people. For the scene to change, the attitudes and states of mind

toward something important to uphold something else need to change. For the people to

change, the scene needs to change (Burke). This means, United States’ rights are agency to

advance attitudes and states of mind toward world economy, world security, and world

humanity to uphold peace, law, order, and/or justice, within the constraint of respecting the

sovereignty of national affairs and territory of other nations. These agencies define right ways

of behaving for the United States and the audience to uphold peace, law, order, and/or justice

(Donnelly). The rights ways of behaving are rights if they function as the right does.

This petitions two important questions? First, what are the right ways of behaving that

advance attitudes and states of mind toward world economy, world security, and world

humanity to uphold peace, law, order, and/or justice, within the constraint of respecting the

sovereignty of national affairs and territory for nations belonging to the organized global

society? These right ways of behaving would be rights. Second, so far it seems that political

scholars might have an interest because these right ways of behaving could be Roosevelt’s

policy, and rights scholars might have an interest because these right ways of behaving explore

the beginning of a theory of United States rights. However, why should rhetorical scholars

care?

The answer guides the remainder of the paper. It is for this reason, next we will explore

rhetoric in relation to what Roosevelt wanted to defeat. Then, how Roosevelt could defeat

wanted he wanted to with group rights brought into being rhetorically. And following that, all

of that in relation to Manzanar. To foreshadow, rhetorical scholars should care because these

agencies were brought into being rhetorically in the quarantine speech to create group rights

that could defeat what Roosevelt wanted to with right ways of behaving adhered to by all, and

a “quarantine.”

Rhetoric and Roosevelt’s policy of what he wanted to defeat:

Rhetoric creates a value-orientated image of the world that reflects “how one ought to

behave” (Fisher). In other words, Rhetoric creates a scene as symbolizing a value for the

audience and this reflects right ways of behaving for the rhetor and audience. What does this

mean though? While Fisher did not provide details, this means that rhetoric creates a scene as

symbolizing a value by connecting the scene’s purpose, a measure of the scene’s qualities, or

the scene’s qualities in relation to something else, to something important for the audience.

Therefore, the right ways of behaving created for the rhetor and audience are to uphold the

scene and the scene symbolizing a value.

The Empire of Japan wanted to uphold the scene they created and the scene

symbolizing a value. By examining Roosevelt’s rhetoric, we can get Roosevelt’s interpretation

as to why the scene the Empire of Japan created connected to something important for the

Empire of Japan’s audience. With this, we can get Roosevelt’s interpretation of the right ways

of behaving for the Empire of Japan’s audience to uphold the scene and the scene symbolizing a

value. This is what spread that Roosevelt wanted to defeat, and defeat from spreading. We can

conclude then, Roosevelt’s policy was to defeat the Empire of Japan’s scene, the scene

symbolizing a value, and the right ways of behaving to uphold the scene and the scene

symbolizing a value that spread, and from spreading.

So how did Roosevelt’s Rhetoric connect the purpose of the scene the Empire of Japan

created, the measure of the qualities, or its qualities in relation to something else, to something

important for the Empire of Japan’s audience? In other words, how does Rhetoric create a

scene as symbolizing a value? Because the scene symbolizing a value would be motivation for

the audience if the scene symbolizing a value creates right ways of behaving for the audience

that are acted on, this means rhetoric creates a scene as symbolizing a value based on how

rhetoric creates motivation for the audience. So how did Roosevelt’s rhetoric create a scene as

symbolizing a value based on how rhetoric creates motivation for an audience?

Burke asks, “What is involved, when we say what people are doing and why they are

doing it?” (xv). He answers, “Any complete statement about motives will offer some kind of

answers to these five questions: what was done (act), when or where it was done (scene), who

did it (agent), how he did it (agency), and why (purpose)” (xv). I ask, according to this logic,

“What is involved when we say what the audience will do and why they will do it?” I answer,

according to Fisher’s logic (the narrative paradigm), “Any complete statement about the

audience’s motives will offer some kind of answers to these five questions: what did the rhetor

say was done (act), when or where did the rhetor say it was done (scene), who did the rhetor

say did it (agent), how he the rhetor say they did it (agency), and why did the rhetor say they

did it (purpose)” (xv). Therefore, how does how the rhetor used scene, act, agency, agent, and

purpose create a scene as symbolizing a value to be motivation for the audience?

According to Burke and Fisher, it depends on if the scene symbolizing a value created by

rhetoric corresponds with the image already held by the audience (Fisher 131). If the scene

symbolizing a value corresponds with the image already held by the audience, it will be

accepted. Because the scene the Empire of Japan created spread, the scene created

symbolizing a value was accepted. This means the accepted scene symbolizing a value created

right ways of behaving for the Empire of Japan’s audience. According to Roosevelt, the right

ways of behaving were being accepted because the scene was spreading. Basically then, an

audience is motivated by a scene symbolizing a value being a sign of consubstantiality

So, how does rhetoric create a scene symbolizing a value being a sign of

consubstantiality? Like all questions that ask how rhetoric does something, it depends on what

rhetoric is. Rhetoric could be, the process of drawing a conclusion about an audience’s

standards of good and bad, right and wrong, and true and false, to implement the standards

into discourse to reduce the audience’s uncertainty because their standards produce, or are a

set of conditions for, the audience to think and act in a certain way. Does this mean an

audience’s uncertainty is reduced through what is established to be an example (standard) of a

good and bad, right and wrong, true and false scene, act, agency, purpose, and agent because

these established examples produce, or are a set of conditions, for scene a symbolizing a value

being a sign of consubstantiality?

Yes, the established examples of a good and bad, right and wrong, true and false scene,

act, agent, agency, and purpose produce, or are a set of conditions for, a scene symbolizing a

value to be a sign of consubstantiality. This is because the established examples of scene, act,

agent, agency, and purpose construct a scene symbolizing a value because they are the purpose

of the scene and the qualities of the scene. Essentially then, these established conditions

produce, or are a set of conditions for, an audience’s motivation. Therefore, by examining

Roosevelt’s rhetoric for his interpretation of the Empire of Japan’s scene, act, agent, agency and

purpose, we can get Roosevelt’s interpretation as to how the Empire of Japan’s scene, act,

agent, agency, and purpose were signs of consubstantiality for the Empire of Japan’s audience.

With this, we can find Roosevelt’s interpretation as to why the scene the Empire of Japan

created had a purpose, had a measure of its qualities, or its qualities in relation to something

else, connected to something important for the Empire of Japan’s audience. With this, we can

get Roosevelt’s interpretation of the right ways of behaving for the Empire of Japan’s audience

to uphold the scene and what the scene is connected to. This “lawlessness” is what Roosevelt

wanted to defeat that spread, and defeat from spreading.

A rhetorical analysis can be used to figure out Roosevelt’s policy of what he wanted to

defeat. For example, in paragraph eight of the quarantine speech, that the Empire of Japan is a

good and right agent to have attitudes toward global society that are enacted through

murderous anarchy for a borderless global scene for the selfish desire for the ability to produce

an effect is connected to the Empire of Japan’s ability to create the conditions necessary for the

Empire of Japan’s global dominance. This creates right ways of behaving for the rhetor and

audience to uphold the scene and the scene symbolizing a value. The right ways of behaving

uphold, and are, global borderlessness in nations and between nations and the Empire of

Japan’s ability to create the conditions necessary for the Empire of Japan’s global dominance.

These are what Roosevelt wanted to defeat that spread, and from spreading.

Rhetoric and United States’ “Rights” in relation to what Roosevelt wanted to defeat:

Roosevelt wanted to defeat the scene, the scene symbolizing a value, and the right ways

of behaving to uphold the scene and what it is connected to created by the Empire of Japan

that spread, and from spreading, so that a new scene prevailed. He thought this could happen

with right ways of behaving adhered to by all because this upholds the foundations of peace:

law, order, justice. Further, he thought this could happen with a “quarantine” that defeated the

wrong ways of behaving. What are the right ways of behaving adhered to by all? How could

Roosevelt bring right ways of behaving adhered by all into being? How does bringing them into

being, and the right ways of behaving adhered to by all, defeat what Roosevelt wanted to? How

is this related to a “quarantine?”

Roosevelt brought right ways of behaving adhered to by all into being with narrative.

Specifically, the signs of consubstantiality for scene, act, agent, agency, and purpose for the

United States’ audience connected a scene’s purpose, a measure of the scene’s qualities, or the

scene’s qualities in relation to something else to peaceful, lawful, and/or justified right ways of

behaving adhered to by all being important for the United States’ audience. Based on analysis,

this is because if there were peaceful, lawful, orderly, and/or justified right ways of behaving

adhered to by all, the United States would have the ability for agency to act out their purpose:

to uphold the foundations of peace for world economy, world security, and world humanity.

This created right ways of behaving for the rhetor and the United States’ audience to

advance attitudes and states of mind toward world economy, world security, and world

humanity, to uphold the scene and the scene symbolizing a value. This is because the agency

for the scene and the scene symbolizing a value for the United States’ audience were attitudes

and states of mind toward peace, law, order, justice, world economy, world security, and world

humanity. In other words, these attitudes and states of mind put into action and produced the

effect that the right ways of behaving adhered to by all were important to the audience.

Therefore, advancing these attitudes and states of mind promotes the interests of peaceful,

lawful, and/or justified right ways of behaving adhered to by all being important.

We can conclude these agencies would be rights. These agencies would be rights

because they function like the conclusion of what rights for the United States would be: they

are agencies to advance attitudes and states of mind toward world economy, world security,

and world humanity to uphold (peace) peaceful, (law) lawful, (order) orderly, and/or (justice)

justified right ways of behaving adhered to by all. How does bringing these agencies into being

in the quarantine speech defeat what Roosevelt wanted to? The explanation for this answer lies

in the question: can we find these agencies in Rhetorical Communication?

Although these rights would not be a human right for individuals to prevent state

abuses, Donnelly’s liberal human rights theory leads to if we can find rights brought into being

by rhetorical communication and why these agencies created rhetorically could defeat what

Roosevelt wanted to. While rhetoric creates a scene to symbolize a value to create right ways

of behaving because of signs of consubstantiality, according to liberal human rights theory,

liberal human rights are not brought into being based on signs on consubstantiality. This is

because liberal human rights create and are “a field of rule-governed interactions centered on,

and under the control of, the [individual] right-holder” (Donnelly, 8). In other words, liberal

human rights do not say how the audience “ought to behave” based on the audience’s

standards of right and wrong, true and false, and good and bad, instead, rights say how the

audience “has to behave,” based on, and under the control of, the person claiming the right

standards of good and bad, right and wrong, and true and false. Therefore, if rhetoric is the

process of drawing a conclusion about an audience’s standards of a good and bad, right and

wrong, and true and false scene, act, agent, agency, and purpose to implement the standards

into discourse to reduce the audience’s uncertainty because these standards produce, or are a

set of conditions for, the audience to think and act in a certain way because they create a scene

symbolizing a value that is consubstantial with the audience, liberal human rights are not

created rhetorically.

However, rhetoric creates rights. Rhetoric creates rights because rhetorical

communication creates group rights. Rhetorical communication creates group rights because

the rights say how the rhetor and audience has to behave based on the collective audience’s

standards of right and wrong, true and false, good and bad scene, act, agent, agency, and

purpose. So why would bringing the agencies for the United States and Americans into being

rhetorically defeat what Roosevelt wanted to because they are group rights?

Roosevelt thought the United States and Americans would not escape the scene, the

scene symbolizing a value, and the right ways of behaving to uphold the scene and what the

scene is connected created by the Empire of Japan. Group rights for the United States and

Americans would provide the ability to defeat what could infect Americans because even when

group membership of the United States is a part of the reason for a right, the individual

Americans still needs protection from the group (Donnelly). Here is why.

According to Burke, a scene reflects because it deflects because people have to select a

reality (Burke). The reason for the group rights created for the “United States” and “Americans”

based on their signs of consubstantiality for scene, act, agent, agency, and purpose, was to

uphold a scene and a scene symbolizing a value based on the “United States” and “Americans”

“selected” signs of consubstantiality. This created a shared understanding that the “United

States” and “Americans” were a “collective” with moral purposes based on the “selected” signs

of the “United States” and “Americans” because they had a capacity for agency (Stanford on-

line Philosophy Encyclopedia). Further, these signs reflected the “United States” and

“Americans” position in relation to “the Empire of Japan’s audience” (Burke). This means the

agencies were to uphold the “United States” and “Americans” “selected” position in relation to

the “the Empire of Japan’s audience.”

The “group” of the “United States” and “Americans” holds a group right because none

of them can hold the right alone (Stanford on-line philosophy encyclopedia). Why none of them

can hold the right alone is left open to interpretation. Referring back to Donnelly, a right

regulates relations between, and helps to constitute, “citizens” and a “state.” Arguably then, a

group could hold a right because none of them can constitute “citizens” and a “state” on their

own. Because Japanese in the United States were thought to be a part of the Empire of Japan’s

audience, the agencies became a way to regulate relations between, and helped to constitute,

“citizens” and “the United States” because they upheld the “United States” and “Americans”

position in relation to “the Empire of Japan’s audience” based on selected signs of

consubstantiality of the “United States” and “Americans.” This created a field of rule-governed

interactions for “citizens,” “the United States,” and “the Empire of Japan’s audience,” centered

on, and under the control of, the “citizens’” and “the United States’” standards of a good and

bad, right and wrong, and true and false act, agent, agency, scene, and purpose. In other

words, bringing rights into being rhetorically could defeat what Roosevelt wanted to because

bringing group rights into being defined how “the United States,” “citizens,” and “the Empire of

Japan’s audience,” would be constituted and regulated so that “the United States” and

“citizens” maintained their position in relation to “the Empire of Japan’s audience,” based on

the selected reality of the “United States” and “citizens.”

And why would these agencies be able to defeat what Roosevelt wanted to? Simply,

because they uphold a scene, a scene as symbolizing a value, and right ways of behaving to

uphold the scene and what the scene is connected to based on the United States. In other

words, it is a war between scenes, scenes symbolizing a value, and right ways of behaving to

uphold the scene and what the scene is connected to. And how are these “rights” related to a

“quarantine?” Manzanar will answer that question.

So the analysis will be: How the signs of consubstantiality for the act, agent, purpose,

scene, and agency of the United States connected a scene’s purpose, a measure of the scene’s

qualities, or the scene’s qualities to peaceful, lawful, and/or justified rights ways of behaving

adhered to by all being important for the audience. And what right ways of behaving for the

rhetor and audience this created that advanced attitudes and states of mind toward world

economy, world security, and world humanity, to uphold the scene and what the scene was

connected to.

Description of Manzanar

“It seems to be unfourtunetly true that the epidemic of world lawlessness is spreading.

When an epidemic of physical disease starts to spread, the community approves and

joins in a quarantine of the patients in order to protect the health and community

against the spread of the disease.”

Accompaning the December 7, 1941 Declaration of War was Presidential Proclamation

2525. This said that people of the Empire of Japan who are not naturalized and will be in the

United States are “alien enemies” that can be detained if they pose a threat (Parks, 2004, ?).

Ten weeks later, on February 19, 1942, Executive Order 9066 gave the military the authority to

define areas where any or all persons could be removed as a “possible protection against

espionage and against sabotage” (Parks ?). Although the order was silent on which group or

race should be excluded, or which geographic locations should become exclusion zones (Fiset,

1999, 566), Lt. Gen. John L. DeWitt recommended that for security reasons people of Japanese

ancestory were removed from the west coast (2ndary 577 6). Worried about invasion and

convinced that Japanese might be loyal to Japan, President Roosevelt insisted the decision was

a matter of ‘military necessity” (Ewers, 2008) because it was impossible to distinguish who

might be loyal to the Empire of Japan (Winks, 1994).

A wide strip along the entire Pacific Coast of Washington, Oregon, California, and

including Arizona Military Areas off limits to enemy aliens were defined as removal zones

(Parks, 2004, 577). Here, ninety percent of the Japanese population in the country, two-thirds

of whom were US citizens by birth, lived (Winks, 1994). People of Japanese decent were

advised to leave voluntarily. On March 11, 1942 the Wartime Civilian Control Administration

was created to overlook the evacuation. By this time, “enemy aliens” had become “the

evacuated people” (Parks, 2004, 578).Congress passed Public Law 503 on March 19, 1942,

making violating the restrictions a criminal offense (Parks, 2004, 577). Congressman John

Rankin said, “I’m for caching every Jap in America and Alaska and Hawaii and putting them in

concentration camps….Damn them! Let’s get rid of them now!” (Japanese American National

Museum). Later in March, President Roosevelt created the War Relocation Authority to

supervise the evacuation. Ten camps, called “relocation centers,” were planned, built, and

settled from May to October 1942 (Parks, 2004).

Without any charges being pressed or a trial (Harth, 1993), the government gave only

days for Japanese to decide what to do with their houses, farms, businesses, and belongings

(source). William Hohri remembers, “We had about one week to dispose of what we owned

except what we could pack and carry for our departure by bus” (source). People who got sent

there remember white people going and buying their belongings for a bargain when they left,

or having to give away their belongings for free (Ewers, 2008). Most, lost their house,

businesses, and belongings.

Each family was assigned an identification number and then loaded into cars, buses,

trucks, and trains. They did not know where they were going or for how long (R 10?). In total,

120,000 people of Japanese Ancestroy were forced to internment camps (Ewers, 2008). People

who were not Japanese, yet married one, went too by choice so that they could stay together

(Japanese American National Museum). It was the largest forced population transfer in United

States history (Twair & Twair, 2008).

The Manzanar Relocation center was the first of the ten “relocation centers” and

originally served as an “assembly center,” a place where federal authorities sent Japanese prior

to settlement at a permanent “relocation center” (History and Culture of Manzanar, 2006).

Manzanar was an old apple orchard with a still plentiful supply of water provided by a creek

bordering the site, George Creek, named after a Paiute chief (Hayashi, 2003, 63). Many people

were permanently settled at Manzanar. At the peak of its population in late 1942 there were

around 10,000 people there. Half the people permanently settled in Manzanar were under the

age of 21, about one-quarter were children and infants, and many were elderly (Renteln, 1995,

620). 88% were from Los Angeles County and 72% were from Los Angeles (Kurashige, 2001).

WRA writers were the prime source of government descriptions of the internment

camps during their operation (Parks, 2004, 579). Even though they said the purpose was not for

confinement, it was to provide communities where evacuees might live and contribute, through

their work to their own support pending their gradual reabsorption into private and normal

American life and to serve as wartime homes for those evacuess who might be unable or unfit

to relocate in ordinary American communities (2ndary 580 6), this is not the case.

Manzanar was both isolated and arid (Hayashi, 2003, 8). It is located on a windswept

square mile plot at the foot of the Sierra Nevada, 200 miles north of Los Angeles (Song &

Wittenburg, 2004). The land had to be leased from the Los Angeles department of water and

power (Cook, 2008). It the summer the temperatures reached 110 degrees farenheight and

there were duststorms (R 10?). One internee wrote of the duststorms, “Anything--death,

mutilation, suffocation, drowning-would be better than to feel the sting of dust in the throat,

the eyes, the nose, the lungs for days at a time” (Shivani, 2008). In the winter it got to below

freezing (R 10?) and there were blinding snowstorms (Hayashi, 2003). Still, the 500 acre

compound was surrounded by a barbed wire fence, eight guard towers manned by soldiers

with machine guns and huge searchlights for the miles of arid desert (Cook, 2008). The guards

were instructed to shoot at inmates who would not halt on command, even children (Harth,

1993).

There were 504 barracks organized into 36 blocks. The living quarters were unsanitary

(Fiset, 1999). Any combination of eight individuals was allotted a 20 by 25 foot room (r 10?). An

oil stove, a single hanging lightbulb, cots, blankets, and mattresses filled with straw were the

only furnishings provided. There was privacy only by stringing sheets between bunks (Song &

Wittenburg, 2004). Government documents even said that “physical standards of life in the

relocation centers have never been much above the bare substience level,” and represented

“real depriation for the majority of residents…” (2ndary 580 6).

Men and women shared toilets and showers and a laundry room. For Rosie Kakuuchi,

and most of the other internees “…one of the hardest things to endure were the communal

latrines, with no partitions; and showers with no stalls” (r 10?) The mess halls were staffed by

inexperienced workers with little knowledge of sanitation and proper-food handling methods

(Fiset, 1999). In the summer heat and windstorms and the winter freeze and snowstorms

people had to wait in long lines outside to get their food (Japanese American National

Museum).

There was a Government policy of enforced assimilation (Colborn-Roxworthy, 2007). By

criminalizing Japanese culture, the US government argued that performing Japanese culture

was an indication of a Japanese heart, so therefore, a duty to enact disloyalty against America

(211-212). The ancestoral culture got criminalized to the extent that people anticipating FBI

raids destroyed objects connected to the Japanese cultural repertoire (209).

Most internees worked in the camp. Professionals were paid $19 a month, skilled

workers received $16 and nonskilled $12. They dug irrigation canals and ditches, made clothes

and furniture, make camoflague rubber and netting for military (r 10?). The internees were

mess hall workers, doctors, nurses, police officers, firefighters, and teachers. The quarantined

were forced to raise their own vegetables and livestock (Twair & Twair, 2008). Internees

established churches, temples, and boys and girls clubs (R 10). There was a hospital complex,

town hall, outdoor theatre, baseball field, orphanage, auditorium for its high school (McStotts,

2007).

Recreational activities and aesthetic wonders threatened to overshadow and otherwise

distort the injustice taking place at Manzanar (Colborn-Roxworthy, 2007, 192). The internees

developed sports, dance, music, and other recreational activities; they built gardens and ponds

(r 10). There were performance festivals were outsiders could judge the performances of

internees (Colborn-Roxworthy, 2007). These helped to appease the Manzanar’s ambivalence

with a “visual rhetoric of good cheer” (202) Manzanar had an ambivalent status as non-“nazi-

style” internment camp with ball playing instead of “torture” (194). One internee wrote in a

letter to a co-worker, “I like to tell you about this camp. Nice place to live. It better than

Hollywood. Snow on mountains. Fresh air…Every day is 80 to 85…” (193)

Beginning in the Fall of 1942, for certain reasons, internees could leave, such as to do

seasonal agricultural work. In 1943 there was a Loyalty questioner that asked if the internees

would serve combat and swear allegiance to the United States. Internees who answered yes

became eligible for indefinite leave. Internees who answered no got sent to segregation center

(r 10?) at Tule Lake that was in violation of the Geneva Convention (Harth, 1993). The

quarantined that answered no, did so, as a protest because of the economic devastation

(Source). By 1943 only 3.9 thousand internees had left voluntarily (Harth, 1993). Many

internees stayed until the end of the war because they had nowhere to go (Ewers, 2008) since

they had lost their homes and businesses. Upon release they were given $25 and a one way

ticket to where they came from (Twair & Twair, 2008).

Manzanar was an economic, cultural, artistic, relationship, and mobility sanction

because Japanese quarantined lost the management of the production, distribution, and

consumption of goods and services, culture, expression, association, and mobility for the

United States to enforce the law. Even though Supreme Court cases Korematsu v US 1944 and

Hirabayashi v US 1943 upheld the “military necessity” motivation for the President and

Congress (Parks, 2004, 585), and the ACLU said it could not challenge the governments right to

remove citizens from military areas ( 2ndary 623 Q9), Manzanar was one of the most

repressive actions ever taken by the United States government (Renteln, 1995). It was

horrendous, one of the most egregious in history, in a way that violates the constitution (Ewers,

2008).

Manzanar was built on wartime hysteria. Manzanar was built on unwarranted suspicion.

Manzanar was built on a lack of political leadership (Iwamura, 2007, 2ndary to Regan).

Manzanar was built on racism (Hays, 2003). Manzanar was built on the group rights built in the

quarantine speech.

Application of what Roosevelt wanted to defeat and the group rights built to Manzanar:

Roosevelt anticipated the use of sanctions to defeat the threats that spread, and from

spreading, posed by the Empire of Japan in the quarantine speech. This is because the threats

posed by the Empire of Japan are evidenced in Manzanar, which was an economic, cultural,

artistic, relationship, and mobility sanction. Manzanar bears witness to “right ways of behaving

adhered to by all” brought into being and a quarantine to defeat the threats that spread, and

from spreading.

Based on the analysis, essentially, when a scene symbolizes a value based on signs of

consubstantiality of the scene, act, agent, agency, and purpose, the scene can always be

connected to the agent’s ability for agency to act out their purpose. In the analysis of

Roosevelt’s interpretation of what he wanted to defeat, the agent is the Empire of Japan and

therefore, Roosevelt’s interpretation of the right ways of behaving support, and are, the Empire

of Japan’s ability for agency to act out their purpose. In other words, the “wrong” ways of

behaving that spread support, and are, loyalty to the Empire of Japan.

For example, in paragraph five, right behavior supports, and is, the Empire of Japan’s

ability to attain an end where they are the highest in rank in the power to influence courses of

action to guide global decisions because their attitudes toward other nation’s, including the

United States’, courses of action, were violently acted out. In paragraph seven, Roosevelt’s

interpretation is that what spread is right behavior that supplies what is needed so that the

Empire of Japan can cause an effect globally in intangible ways by wiping away the foundations

of a peacefully diverse global society with attitudes toward nations internal affairs and territory.

And in paragraph nineteen, right behavior supports, and is, the Empire of Japan’s production of

what will be used as an unprovoked attack to maintain the greatest ability to exert influence in

relation to other nation’s.

Manzanar was the use of sanctions to defeat the spread of loyalty to the Empire of

Japan. This loyalty was seen as “lawlessness.” When this spreads, those that can be infected

with the “disease” should be approvingly quarantined. Manzanar witnesses this.

Roosevelt did not reject the positions he took in the quarantine speech. This is because

Manzanar beholds the group rights built in the quarantine speech. Manzanar beholds a field of

governed interactions based on the “United States” and “Americans” signs of consubstantiality

to constitute “citizens” and a “state.” Manzanar beholds the upholding of the “United States”

and “Americans” position in relation to “the Empire of Japan’s audience” based on the

“selected” signs of consubstantiality for the “United States” and “Americans.”

For example, quarantining Japanese in the United States, without a trial, within days,

was built by the United States right to advance attitudes toward the United States being

undisturbed by other nations to uphold peace of mind in the United States because the United

States has the ability to set a course of action to guide decisions toward peace because there

are peaceful right ways of behaving adhered to by all. Quarantining Japanese in the United

States, without a trial, within days, was built by the United States advancing attitudes toward

the United States being undisturbed by other nations. This is because the interpretation was

that Japanese in the United States needed to be quarantined, without a trial, within days,

because they would be loyal to the Empire of Japan and engage in espionage and sabotage. If

they engaged in espionage and sabotage they would disturb the United States war efforts. This

upheld peace of mind in the United States because the United States has the ability to set a

course of action to guide decisions toward peace because there are peaceful right ways of

behaving adhered to by all. This is because quarantining Japanese without a trial, within days,

was interpreted as ensuring there would be peaceful right ways of behaving adhered to by all,

as opposed to the unpeaceful behavior of engaging in espionage and sabotage. This helped to

ensure peace of mind in the United States because the United States had the ability to set a

course of action to guide decisions toward peace. In other words, this helped to ensure peace

of mind in the United States because the United States would have the ability to set a course of

action for the war to guide decisions toward peace because Japanese in the United States

would not be able to disturb the course of action set for peace with espionage and sabotage.

Critical Insights w/conclusion

I am waiting to do this last, until I have completed all the drafts, because I am not sure at this

point, what will change, with feedback.

Sources

Beebe & Beebe.

Briand-Kellogg Pact. (1928). Retrieved from

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/kbpact.asp

Bryson, T. (1975). Roosevelt’s quarantine speech, the Georgia press and the Borg thesis: A note.

Australian Journal of Politics & History, 21(2), 95-98. Retrieved September 1, 2009, from

America: History & Life database.

Burke, K. A grammar of motives.

Colborn-Roxworthy, E. (2007, May.) Manzanar, the eyes of the world are upon you:

Performance and archival ambivalence at a Japanese American internment camp. Theatre

Journal, 59(2), 189-214.

Cook, W. (2008, April). Harsh winds shake dust from Manzanar’s past. World War II, 23(3), 22.

Retrieved November 24, 2008, from MAS Ultra-School Edition database.

Donnelly, J. (2003). Universal human rights: In theory and practice. Ithaca: Cornell University

Press.

Ewers, J. (2008, May 19). Journey into a dark past: U.S. news & world report, 144(14). 32-35..

Retrieved November 24, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.

Fiset, L. (1999). Public health in world war II assembly centers for Japanese Americans. Bulletiin

of the History of Medicine, 73(4), 565-584. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from America:

History and Life database.

Fisher, W. (1970, April). A motive view of communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 56(2),

131-139. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from Humanities International Index database.

Fisher Narrative Paradigm

Haight (1962)

Haight, J. (1971). Franklin D. Roosevelt and a naval quarantine of Japan. Pacific Historical

Review, 40(2), 203-226. Retrieved November 23, 2008, from Historical Abstracts database.

Harth, E. (1993, September). Children of Manzanar. (Cover Story). Massachusetts Review, 34(3),

367. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.

Hayashi, R. (2003, Fall). Transfigured patterns: Contesting memories at the manzanar national

historic site. Public Historian, 25(4), 51-72. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from Academic

Search Premier database.

Hays, F. (2003, Autumn). The national park service: Groveling sycophant or social conscience:

Telling the story of mountains, valley, and barbed wire at manzanar national historic site. The

Public Historian, 25(4), 73-80. Retrieved November 11, 2008, from

History and Culture of Manzanar (2006). Retrieved November 24, 2008 from

http://www.nps.gov/manz/historyculture/index.htm.

Iwamura, J. (2007). Critical faith: Japanese Americans and the birth of a new civil religion.

American Quarterly, 59(3), 937-968. Retrieved November 14, 2008, from America, History &

Life database.

Jacobs, T. (1962). Roosevelt’s ‘quarantine speech.’ Historian, 24(4), 483-502. Retrieved

November 23, 2008, from Historical Abstracts database.

Japanese American National Museum.

Kurashige, L. (2001, Aug.) Resistance, collaboration, and manzanar protest. The Pacific

Historical Review, 70(3), 387-417. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from

McStotts. J. (2007, May). Internment in the desert: A critical review of manzanar national

historic site. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 13(3), 281-287. Retrieved November 24,

2008, from

Nine Power Treaty. (1922). Retrieved from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/tr22-

01.asp

Parks, K. (2004, November). Revisiting Manzanar: A history of Japanese American internment

camps as presented in selected federal government documents 1941-2002. Journal of

Government Information, 30(5/6), 575-593. Retrieved November 14, 2008, doi:

10.1016/j.jgi.2004.10.003

Renteln, A. (1995, November). A psychohistorical analysis of the Japanese American

internment. Human Rights Quarterly, 17(4), 518-648. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from

Academic Search Premier database.

Roosevelt, F. D. (1937). The quarantine speech. Retrieved from

http://history.sandiego.edu/GEN/text/us/fdr1937.html

Shivani, A. (2008) Manzanar. Agni (68), 111-29. Retrieved August 31, 2009 from Wilsonweb

Humanities Full Text database.

Song, S. & Wittenburg, M. (2004, February 16). The Japanese camps: Making the 9/11 link.

Time, 163(7), 20-20. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.

Stanford on-line encyclopedia of philosophy

Twair, P., & Twair, S. (2008, July). CAIR, Japanese Americans forge historic ties at manzanar

concentration camp. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, 27(5), 46-47. Retrieved

November 24, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.

Winks, R. (1994, March). Sites of shame. National Parks, p. 22. Retrieved November 14, 2008,

from Academic Search Premier database.

Missing:

7 Secondaries ---hopefully some become primaries---they are mainly government documents

R10

6 more