FREE ESSAY ON POPULATION REDISTRIBUTION

POPULATION REDISTRIBUTION

Population redistributions based on ethnicity have defused intense rivalries in the recent
past, and could be a solution to the internal ethnic crises for nations such as the
former Yugoslavia. Currently described by the media as ethnic cleansing, Population
redistributions have been the focus of much controversy throughout U.S. and world
history. To those affected, Population redistributions can be economically and
emotionally devastating. It can also lead to enormous tragedies causing thousands of
deaths when conducted in a brutal manner. The results of various population
redistributions are examined throughout this paper with the focus on the Japanese
Internment camps in the U.S. and the current crises in the former Yugoslavia.
There are examples of population transfers that have taken place in the twentieth
century. In 1923, Greece and Turkey signed the Treaty of Lausanne. The two rival nations
agreed to expel 150,000 Greeks living in Turkey, and 388,000 Turks living in Greece back
to their ethnic homelands. Except in Cyprus where the populations remained mixed. Turkey
and Greece have not taken up arms against each other again. After World War II eight
million people of German ethnicity were expelled from their native communities in Poland
and throughout Eastern Europe, due to agreements made by the Allies at the Potsdam
Conference. Hundreds of thousands of Germans died or were killed during the transfer due
to the brutal manner in which it was carried out. Due to the lack of diversity and
conflicting cultures the long-term results of the population transfer have ended internal
ethnic problems in Poland since then. Israel expelled their own settlers from occupied
land (which is currently the new Palestinian nation) in order to bring about a lasting
peace between the two former rivals. After bombing Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on December 7,
1941, 120,000 Japanese and Japanese-Americans living in Oregon, Washington, California,
and Arizona were relocated. They were forced from their homes and put in internment camps
for their protection from the rage of the American people and for the sake of national
security. 
Japanese-American internment camps like all issues involving race or war, raises the
question of whether or not it was legal and ethical to force Japanese-Americans to move
homes and livelihoods in early WWII. It is a difficult and controversial problem. When
the decision to relocate thousands of Japanese-Americans was made; the actions were
considered to be constitutionally legal and seen by many as necessary. It has been argued
as to whether or not it was necessary to put so many innocent people through frustration,
suffering, and loss of not only their property but also their freedom. 
Even before the onset of war, due to the differences in their language, culture,
communities, customs, and religion, the Japanese living in America were already alienated
from much of society. This made it easier for Americans to justify to themselves the need
for a temporary population redistribution of the Japanese-Americans. When the bombing of
Pearl Harbor occurred, the American people were afraid of a Japanese attack and of the
Japanese living near them on the West Coast. People believed their Japanese-American
neighbors were the enemy. Americans were so enraged at Japan that they turned their anger
towards Japanese-Americans in the forms of protests, discrimination and violent hatred.
The Government, including President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, were pressured by the
restlessness of the people, the threat of a Japanese attack, the threat of violence
between Americans and Japanese-Americans and the lack of time to take action. 
Lieutenant General John L. DeWitt was chosen for the job of defending and protecting the
West Coast. He became one of the biggest supporters of relocating the Japanese. The FBI
began investigating and arresting people along the coast who were suspected of spying for
enemy countries. Japanese-Americans were not the only people suspected of spying.
Italians and Germans were also investigated and imprisoned. DeWitt received reports of
acts of disloyalty to the U.S. and sabotage on the part of Japanese-Americans. He was
also inundated with reports of unusual radio activity involving contact with Japanese
vessels, of farmers burning their fields in the shapes of markers to aid Japanese pilots,
and of fisherman monitoring and relaying to Japan the activity of the U.S. navy. None of
these reports were substantiated, however they were still considered a potential threat.
Executive Order 9066, signed by President Roosevelt, gave the military permission to
label land military areas and to keep out people who were seen as threats to national
security. DeWitt named the west coast a military area in Proclamation 1 in March 1942.
This gave him the right to remove all those who threatened the safety of the U.S. from
the area. DeWitt believed that even 100 Japanese-Americans who were still loyal to Japan
could compromise the safety of the U.S., therefore he decided that all people of Japanese
ancestry had to be evacuated and placed in temporary relocation camps. He felt as did
many others, that there was not enough time to investigate each individual person. In the
interest of national security, DeWitt made the tough decision to take away the freedom of
120,000 people. This was entirely legal. Within the Constitution, the War Power Clause
gives congress the right to make any laws required to win a war. 
The evacuation and internment of the Japanese was seen as a necessity to national
security. The Japanese-Americans were a potential threat to the country and the war
effort. The relocation of Japanese-Americans may have been legally carried out, but not
without consequence. The Japanese-Americans who were forced to leave their homes lost a
great deal. They were often given notice of the relocation only a few days in advance.
They could only bring with them what they could carry, and they were forced to abandon,
give away or sell their assets at fractions of the actual worth. Before more permanent
facilities could be built, the displaced people had to live in make shift detention
areas, often nothing more than a converted horse stable. The actual relocation camps were
an improvement from the temporary facilities but still far from adequate housing. At the
camps they were forced to live in undesirable conditions where they had little or no
privacy and only the luxuries that they brought with them. Their treatment was harsh and
unethical, but considered a necessary consequence of war. 
After years of hardship, the Japanese in the relocation camps were ordered released. The
threat of Japanese spies had passed and it was no longer deemed necessary to detain them.
The Japanese-Americans had little or nothing to return to. Most had lost everything
during their internment. Years later, in 1976, President Gerald R. Ford made Proclamation
4417, which made Executive Order No. 9066 completely void. The proclamation was also
written to admit that the government had been wrong to treat its citizens with such
disrespect. It states that the Japanese-Americans were extremely loyal and were unfairly
suspected. In 1983 the government decided to give monetary compensation to the internees
and to apologize and make up for their lost possessions and suffering. 
The Government is given the power to do what is necessary to win in times of war. This
right is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States. 'What is necessary to win a
war' includes the relocation of anyone posing a threat to our national security, and the
Japanese seen as a threat during the war. The population redistribution of the
Japanese-Americans in WWII, was a temporary solution to a potential threat to national
security and it was a way to protect the Japanese from fearful and angry American
citizens.
American history gives an example of mishandled population redistributions. The
atrocities against the American Indians in the 1800's are a brutal example of what can
result when population redistributions are poorly executed. The U.S. relocated Indian
tribes to reservations throughout the U.S. The Indians were forced to leave not only
their homes but also their entire way of life behind. This was the end to years of
bloodshed between the cavalry and the Indians. Unfortunately the Indians were killed
nearly to extinction before they were relocated to these reservations. Did this preserve
the lives of the remaining Indians or was it just one final step in taking the land where
the Indians had resided for generations.
Recent precedents exist to endorse the concept of forced Population redistributions to
bring about domestic security. Since 1991, the newly created nations, which constitute
the former Yugoslavia, have repeatedly turned to violence to solve their territorial
disputes. Despite the internal peace that had existed in Yugoslavia during the Cold War,
the demise of communism has awakened long-standing ethnic rivalries. Bosnia was the
center of the fighting between the Serbs, Muslims, and Croats and Kosovo has been the
center of fighting between the Serbs and Ethnic Albanians. Many of these people who were
neighbors and lived in the same communities for decades, now find the thought of
reestablishing their ethnically diverse communities an impossibility after so much
bloodshed. Once peace has been established and the borders have been confirmed in Kosovo
and the various regions of Yugoslavia, can an ethnic population redistribution insure the
peace?
As it was in the forced relocation of Japanese-Americans in WWII, the biggest obstacle to
involuntary Population redistributions is the morality of such a program. To force people
from the land and communities of their ancestors in order to procure the possibility of
internal stability is an enormous price. The emotional and psychological toll to these
people is likely far more costing than that which the Japanese-Americans faced. Simply
because this has been their homeland for hundreds of years as opposed to a few
generations.
Unless such a population transfer is done under the protection of friendly troops or the
United Nations, the results could be disastrous. Thousands in Bosnia and Kosovo have
already died due to the ethnic cleansing policies of the rival powers. During World War
II millions of Jewish people suffered indescribable torture at the hands of the Germans
and millions more lost their lives. At the end of the war, hundreds of thousands of
German civilians lost their lives after being inhumanly expelled from their homes without
adequate food, clothing, transportation, or protection from vengeful enemies. The forced
transfer of the German populations from their inherent regions were achieved, but at an
appalling cost. Proper protection, logistical support, and assistance in establishing a
livelihood are absolutely essential to a successful population redistribution.
A population transfer could bring internal long-term stability to the regions of the
former Yugoslavia, but it is a policy, which must be thoroughly planned and negotiated
prior to being implemented. Maintaining the peace may be attained through other means
without an ethnic redistribution, and this could be the morally correct decision. The
United States has generally been successful with its melting pot society and can be used
as an example of different cultures living together peacefully in the same nation. After
peace has been established in the former Yugoslavia, a discussion about possible
population transfers should be conducted at the United Nations with the rival powers
present, so the most humane decision can be made regarding the citizens.
It is impossible to decide for a race of people what their fate shall be and to remain
confident that the decision is morally correct. Redistribution could prevent war and
bloodshed, but it could also wipe out a way of life and in time a race of people. Are the
people still the same people when they have been forced to change their way of life
eventually killing the culture which made them who they were? It comes down to the choice
of allowing the possible death of thousands to war or the possible death of a culture to
forced population redistribution. Population redistribution could be the solution to
lasting peace in nations faced with rivaling cultures due to ethnic diversity, but the
peace would not come without a price.
Population redistributions based on ethnicity have defused intense rivalries in the
recent past, and could be a solution to the internal ethnic crises for nations such as
the former Yugoslavia. Currently described by the media as ethnic cleansing, Population
redistributions have been the focus of much controversy throughout U.S. and world
history. To those affected, Population redistributions can be economically and
emotionally devastating. It can also lead to enormous tragedies causing thousands of
deaths when conducted in a brutal manner. The results of various population
redistributions are examined throughout this paper with the focus on the Japanese
Internment camps in the U.S. and the current crises in the former Yugoslavia.
There are examples of population transfers that have taken place in the twentieth
century. In 1923, Greece and Turkey signed the Treaty of Lausanne. The two rival nations
agreed to expel 150,000 Greeks living in Turkey, and 388,000 Turks living in Greece back
to their ethnic homelands. Except in Cyprus where the populations remained mixed. Turkey
and Greece have not taken up arms against each other again. After World War II eight
million people of German ethnicity were expelled from their native communities in Poland
and throughout Eastern Europe, due to agreements made by the Allies at the Potsdam
Conference. Hundreds of thousands of Germans died or were killed during the transfer due
to the brutal manner in which it was carried out. Due to the lack of diversity and
conflicting cultures the long-term results of the population transfer have ended internal
ethnic problems in Poland since then. Israel expelled their own settlers from occupied
land (which is currently the new Palestinian nation) in order to bring about a lasting
peace between the two former rivals. After bombing Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on December 7,
1941, 120,000 Japanese and Japanese-Americans living in Oregon, Washington, California,
and Arizona were relocated. They were forced from their homes and put in internment camps
for their protection from the rage of the American people and for the sake of national
security. 
Japanese-American internment camps like all issues involving race or war, raises the
question of whether or not it was legal and ethical to force Japanese-Americans to move
homes and livelihoods in early WWII. It is a difficult and controversial problem. When
the decision to relocate thousands of Japanese-Americans was made; the actions were
considered to be constitutionally legal and seen by many as necessary. It has been argued
as to whether or not it was necessary to put so many innocent people through frustration,
suffering, and loss of not only their property but also their freedom. 
Even before the onset of war, due to the differences in their language, culture,
communities, customs, and religion, the Japanese living in America were already alienated
from much of society. This made it easier for Americans to justify to themselves the need
for a temporary population redistribution of the Japanese-Americans. When the bombing of
Pearl Harbor occurred, the American people were afraid of a Japanese attack and of the
Japanese living near them on the West Coast. People believed their Japanese-American
neighbors were the enemy. Americans were so enraged at Japan that they turned their anger
towards Japanese-Americans in the forms of protests, discrimination and violent hatred.
The Government, including President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, were pressured by the
restlessness of the people, the threat of a Japanese attack, the threat of violence
between Americans and Japanese-Americans and the lack of time to take action. 
Lieutenant General John L. DeWitt was chosen for the job of defending and protecting the
West Coast. He became one of the biggest supporters of relocating the Japanese. The FBI
began investigating and arresting people along the coast who were suspected of spying for
enemy countries. Japanese-Americans were not the only people suspected of spying.
Italians and Germans were also investigated and imprisoned. DeWitt received reports of
acts of disloyalty to the U.S. and sabotage on the part of Japanese-Americans. He was
also inundated with reports of unusual radio activity involving contact with Japanese
vessels, of farmers burning their fields in the shapes of markers to aid Japanese pilots,
and of fisherman monitoring and relaying to Japan the activity of the U.S. navy. None of
these reports were substantiated, however they were still considered a potential threat.
Executive Order 9066, signed by President Roosevelt, gave the military permission to
label land military areas and to keep out people who were seen as threats to national
security. DeWitt named the west coast a military area in Proclamation 1 in March 1942.
This gave him the right to remove all those who threatened the safety of the U.S. from
the area. DeWitt believed that even 100 Japanese-Americans who were still loyal to Japan
could compromise the safety of the U.S., therefore he decided that all people of Japanese
ancestry had to be evacuated and placed in temporary relocation camps. He felt as did
many others, that there was not enough time to investigate each individual person. In the
interest of national security, DeWitt made the tough decision to take away the freedom of
120,000 people. This was entirely legal. Within the Constitution, the War Power Clause
gives congress the right to make any laws required to win a war. 
The evacuation and internment of the Japanese was seen as a necessity to national
security. The Japanese-Americans were a potential threat to the country and the war
effort. The relocation of Japanese-Americans may have been legally carried out, but not
without consequence. The Japanese-Americans who were forced to leave their homes lost a
great deal. They were often given notice of the relocation only a few days in advance.
They could only bring with them what they could carry, and they were forced to abandon,
give away or sell their assets at fractions of the actual worth. Before more permanent
facilities could be built, the displaced people had to live in make shift detention
areas, often nothing more than a converted horse stable. The actual relocation camps were
an improvement from the temporary facilities but still far from adequate housing. At the
camps they were forced to live in undesirable conditions where they had little or no
privacy and only the luxuries that they brought with them. Their treatment was harsh and
unethical, but considered a necessary consequence of war. 
After years of hardship, the Japanese in the relocation camps were ordered released. The
threat of Japanese spies had passed and it was no longer deemed necessary to detain them.
The Japanese-Americans had little or nothing to return to. Most had lost everything
during their internment. Years later, in 1976, President Gerald R. Ford made Proclamation
4417, which made Executive Order No. 9066 completely void. The proclamation was also
written to admit that the government had been wrong to treat its citizens with such
disrespect. It states that the Japanese-Americans were extremely loyal and were unfairly
suspected. In 1983 the government decided to give monetary compensation to the internees
and to apologize and make up for their lost possessions and suffering. 
The Government is given the power to do what is necessary to win in times of war. This
right is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States. 'What is necessary to win a
war' includes the relocation of anyone posing a threat to our national security, and the
Japanese seen as a threat during the war. The population redistribution of the
Japanese-Americans in WWII, was a temporary solution to a potential threat to national
security and it was a way to protect the Japanese from fearful and angry American
citizens.
American history gives an example of mishandled population redistributions. The
atrocities against the American Indians in the 1800's are a brutal example of what can
result when population redistributions are poorly executed. The U.S. relocated Indian
tribes to reservations throughout the U.S. The Indians were forced to leave not only
their homes but also their entire way of life behind. This was the end to years of
bloodshed between the cavalry and the Indians. Unfortunately the Indians were killed
nearly to extinction before they were relocated to these reservations. Did this preserve
the lives of the remaining Indians or was it just one final step in taking the land where
the Indians had resided for generations.
Recent precedents exist to endorse the concept of forced Population redistributions to
bring about domestic security. Since 1991, the newly created nations, which constitute
the former Yugoslavia, have repeatedly turned to violence to solve their territorial
disputes. Despite the internal peace that had existed in Yugoslavia during the Cold War,
the demise of communism has awakened long-standing ethnic rivalries. Bosnia was the
center of the fighting between the Serbs, Muslims, and Croats and Kosovo has been the
center of fighting between the Serbs and Ethnic Albanians. Many of these people who were
neighbors and lived in the same communities for decades, now find the thought of
reestablishing their ethnically diverse communities an impossibility after so much
bloodshed. Once peace has been established and the borders have been confirmed in Kosovo
and the various regions of Yugoslavia, can an ethnic population redistribution insure the
peace?
As it was in the forced relocation of Japanese-Americans in WWII, the biggest obstacle to
involuntary Population redistributions is the morality of such a program. To force people
from the land and communities of their ancestors in order to procure the possibility of
internal stability is an enormous price. The emotional and psychological toll to these
people is likely far more costing than that which the Japanese-Americans faced. Simply
because this has been their homeland for hundreds of years as opposed to a few
generations.
Unless such a population transfer is done under the protection of friendly troops or the
United Nations, the results could be disastrous. Thousands in Bosnia and Kosovo have
already died due to the ethnic cleansing policies of the rival powers. During World War
II millions of Jewish people suffered indescribable torture at the hands of the Germans
and millions more lost their lives. At the end of the war, hundreds of thousands of
German civilians lost their lives after being inhumanly expelled from their homes without
adequate food, clothing, transportation, or protection from vengeful enemies. The forced
transfer of the German populations from their inherent regions were achieved, but at an
appalling cost. Proper protection, logistical support, and assistance in establishing a
livelihood are absolutely essential to a successful population redistribution.
A population transfer could bring internal long-term stability to the regions of the
former Yugoslavia, but it is a policy, which must be thoroughly planned and negotiated
prior to being implemented. Maintaining the peace may be attained through other means
without an ethnic redistribution, and this could be the morally correct decision. The
United States has generally been successful with its melting pot society and can be used
as an example of different cultures living together peacefully in the same nation. After
peace has been established in the former Yugoslavia, a discussion about possible
population transfers should be conducted at the United Nations with the rival powers
present, so the most humane decision can be made regarding the citizens.
It is impossible to decide for a race of people what their fate shall be and to remain
confident that the decision is morally correct. Redistribution could prevent war and
bloodshed, but it could also wipe out a way of life and in time a race of people. Are the
people still the same people when they have been forced to change their way of life
eventually killing the culture which made them who they were? It comes down to the choice
of allowing the possible death of thousands to war or the possible death of a culture to
forced population redistribution. Population redistribution could be the solution to
lasting peace in nations faced with rivaling cultures due to ethnic diversity, but the
peace would not come without a price.