As I interviewed Velma Lee Parker, my great-grandmother, I found that I was greatly surprised by how small her world seemed. Her life revolved around God, her family, and her home. She didn’t seem as affected by many of the events as I had originally thought.
Having been taught my entire life about the impact of World War II and the following consequences, I had thought the war had had a large influence on everyone’s lives. I had fully expected World War I to be burnt permanently in my great-grandmother’s memory. I had anticipated stories of missiles and yellow ribbons, yet Mrs. Parker only registered the war, because certain items were restricted. The main upset during the war was that she was not able to attend both Sunday church services as she had previously.
I found my great-grandmother’s optimism and faith refreshing. In a world that is as pessimistic at today’s society, finding somebody who has such complete and utter faith in God or who finds joy in planting flowers is a rarity. She handled every difficulty with prayer, not on self-reliance, and as a result, their hardships typically ended well. This gives me hope.
I found Velma Lee Parker’s view on politics and certain presidents entertaining. She knows with such certainty that John F. Kennedy was shot, because God did not want a Catholic leading a the United States of America. This logic continues with our current president. She believes that if he is a Muslim, God will strike him down, rather than have him lead our country. She doesn’t see race, but politics and religion.
Hearing my great-grandmother discuss the war in Vietnam and the resulting death of my great-uncle Lonnie was rather difficult, as it’s also a difficult topic for her. It is the only time in her many years that she has admitted doubting God, and I believe the only time she has ever doubted God. Both she and Lonnie knew that he was never coming home. That is a difficult emotion to describe or to even imagine, and yet, she remains steadfastly proud of all that Lonnie did. His actions and his beliefs have an effect on her even now. She bases her political beliefs on what she believes Lonnie would do.
I was both shocked and unsurprised by Velma Lee Parker’s certainty that armageddon, the end of the world as we know it, is upon us. She knows the scriptures and views current events as signs of the end of the world.
As I was interviewing my great-grandmother, it dawned on me that she is an actual person, who has lived an actual life, a long life. She had a childhood, she had a long marriage, she raised three children, and many, many grandchildren and great-grandchildren, as well as a few great-great grandchildren. In my head, I have always seen her in her garden and associated her with mudpies. In my mind, she has always been the “jailkeeper” from the times I would hide under the side table in her living room. She would humor me and deliver my meals to my cell on toy tea sets. My great-grandmother has always been the quilt-maker and protector of mangy mutts. Now she’s more of a person to me. Though, she still protects that evil Pomeranian mutt.

-Hannah Jo, 2009

Labels: great-grandmother, history, pomeranian mutt

Not exactly creative, but it's writing. :P

Locke & Hobbes

Both Thomas Hobbes and John Locke believed that there should be a form of government. However, the two philosophers differed in opinion on what form of government was needed.

John Locke argued that the government must be influenced by citizens of a nation or state. He believed that it was the government’s responsibility to care for the citizens’s needs. If the government failed to do so, the people had a right to revolt and overthrow their government. Locke also believed that because people were equal, and had similar conscience’s that they would be able to coexist peaceably within nature.

Thomas Hobbes was a strong supporter of an absolute monarchy. He argued that once the citizens’s placed power with a ruler, it must stay. The citizens’s would be denied the ability to revolt or regain power. Hobbes believed that an absolute ruler was necessary, because he considered mankind as any other savage beast. He argued that humans are naturally selfish and inately wicked, therefore the strong authority was required in order to keep mankind in check. The title Leviathan comes from this belief. Hobbes compared a successful government to a large sea monster: fierce, strong, and powerful.

The two men were influenced by the events that came to pass during their lifetimes. Hobbes experienced the English Civil War and Locke observed the Glorious Revolution. The English Civil War (1642-1651) was a time of great turmoil in England that ultimately led to the rule of Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell’s behavior caused many, including Hobbes, to support a monarchy. Locke, however, witnessed the Glorious Revolution (1688). No monarch has had absolute reign since the revolution. Thus began the practice of parliamentary democracy.

I find that I agree with John Locke and his beliefs. Larger governments hold more power than necessary. If you allow one person, or a small group of people, to make many decisions concerning the entire population, the populace will suffer. We, as humans, are raised to believe we are all equal to one another.

The vast majority of humanity understands their natural rights and pursue them. Few people attempt to hinder another’s pursuit, unless wronged. This also falls under Locke’s doctrine. We, the wronged, are the ones to punish those who have wronged us. In larger governments, those who have wronged another do not have their actions reciprocated properly. The judgement is left in the hands of one man, or a small group of people, rather than his peers or those wronged by him.

Locke argues that mankind can leave peaceably, and I find that I agree. Even in today’s society, the majority of the population live harmonious lives. Very few people witness crimes or wrongdoing. Mankind knows instinctively the difference between wrong and right, as stated by Locke.

Hobbes’ idea of an absolute leader and of human nature is jaded, to say the least. He witnessed chaos during his life and believed that a strong leader would have stopped it. Humans are not purely selfish creatures, nor are we savage beasts that need a master to guide us in all we do.

Labels: civilization, class, history, hobbes, locke, philosophy

When the United States Armed Forces sent recruiters to the war camps, they were recieved with varying responses. The men of draft age had to choose whether or not to assist a country who had betrayed them. The men of the camps were split into two groups: the “no-no” men and those who chose to volunteer.
If Yoshiko Uchida had been eligible for the draft and was required to answer questions twenty-seven and twenty-eight, I believe she would have been torn. She would have wanted to stand up for her own rights and liberties, refusing to fight for a country who had denied her all freedoms. However, I believe that the opportunity to leave Topaz would also prove desirable. She also felt loyal the United States no matter how contemptuous it felt towards her. Yoshiko, like many Nisei, had no other country.
Question twenty-eight, “Will you swear unqualified allegiance to the United States of America and forswear any form of allegiance or obedience to the Japanese Emperor, or any other foreign government power or organzation?”, was a racist question that would have offended Yoshiko and many other Japanese Americans. They had lived in the United States for the majority of their lives, many having never left American soil. The question implies that all Japanese Americans supported the Japanese Emperor and his actions against the United States, that they were all traitors to their country. One can infer from the question that the Armed Forces did not view the Japanese Americans as true Americans, another insult to many of the Japanese Americans who had always viewed themselves as such.
Question twenty-seven, “Are you willing to serve in the armed forces of the United States on combat duty, wherever ordered?”, was considered a very loaded question as well. Refusing to answer yes implied that you were a traitor, however answering yes would lead to even more racist behavior. The Armed Forces spoke of forming an all Japanese American combat team, stating that this would allow the entire country to view their loyalty, making them more visible than if they were dispersed among other battalions. The Japanese Americans worried, however, that doing so would only lead to more racist behavior. Their was the possibility that they were more likely to be sent into combat first, that their gear may not be in the best condition, and the Issei feared going into combat against their home country, Japan.
I believe the Nisei men should have refused to serve. It is the duty of American citizens to serve their country, however at the time they were not counted among the citizens. They were denied all basic rights guaranteed to all American citizens. If rights are revoked without reason, then the need to do ones patriotic duty is also revoked.
It could be argued that they the Japanese Americans would soon have their freedom and rights back due to President Roosevelt’s statement. However, President Roosevelt made no mention of the restoration of civil liberties. He spoke only of “the democratic right to exercise the responsibilites of his citizenship.” The Japanese Americans were only allowed the right to serve in the war, not only being waged overseas, but in the United States against the country’s own citizens. I believe many Japanese Americans would have found it upsetting and foolish of the United States government to expect the people it had demonized to serve in the war that was being fought partially against them. They were not to be rewarded any other rights nor liberties. They were only allowed to sacrifice themselves to a country who did not consider the Japanese Americans as part of their citizenship.

2474 / 5000 words. 49% done!

Labels: Americans, Desert, Exile, history, Japanese, paper, war, WWII