After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt ordered the inter

Question

After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt ordered the internment of thousands of American citizens of Japanese ancestry. They were not guilty of any crime, but were considered potentially disloyal because of their ancestry. A large number of Americans, possibly a majority, supported the President's action on moral grounds. Then, almost half a century later, Congress awarded every Japanese American who had been interned $20,000 in reparations. Because few people made any public protest, a majority of the American people presumably approved of the congressional action.

Was the internment morally justified? Was the paying of reparations? Is it an example of cultural relativism during its era? Are there any examples today when the US might be practicing or engaging in cultural relativism to morally justify our behavior (foreign or domestic policies)?

Respond in a post of at least 100 words

Explanation / Answer

Yes, the internment morally was justified. Yes, the paying was of reparations and, it is an example of cultural relativism during its era.

The US might be practicing or engaging in cultural relativism to morally justify our behavior (foreign or domestic policies)

Political correctness (and multiculturalism) threatens free speech in both the academic sphere and the nonacademic workplace and ultimately the very foundation of American society. The government has, in essence, eliminated most free speech protection in the workplace. Free speech, which is an economic good to academics through which they make their living, has fared somewhat better in the educational world. Broadly conceived, political correctness includes a number of initiatives such as: altering vocabularies in order not to offend particular groups, affirmative action in admissions and hiring, multicultural education, and broadening the scope of classical texts to include those written by minority authors and women. Then there are the workshops in which people are taught by “experts” how to be attuned to others’ feelings and how to avoid being found guilty of “sexual harassment,” “racial insensitivity,” and so on.

The philosophy of social engineering, as reflected in contemporary civil rights policies and agendas, is primarily based on five concepts: collectivism, determinism, economic egalitarianism, elitism, and historical victimization. Multiculturalism, a merger of collectivism and determinism, asserts that no person can avoid the forces imposed by race, ethnicity, gender, etc. Fortunately, according to the proponents of social engineering, there exists an elite able to remedy historical victimization. Undergirding the philosophy of social engineering is the idea that all individuals should be economically equal. When equality does not exist, it must be due to exploitation and discriminatory exclusion. Consequently, the elite needs to act through the legal and educational systems in order to establish the economic equality that would have existed in the absence of exploitation and domination.
  
The elite includes individuals and groups who far exceed the general population in intellect, morality, and dedication to the “common good.” Their general superiority enables them to use their articulated rationality to function as surrogate decision makers in governmental economic and social planning. Their special wisdom, knowledge, virtue, compassion, commitment, and intentions qualify them to guide the actions of the many either through articulation or force. Because the elite tend to assume that human nature is infinitely malleable, they attempt to mold the nature of the people according to their superior judgments and advanced views.

*Note- Ref: http://www.quebecoislibre.org/younkins26.html

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse A
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.