Teresa Watanabe
In this episode we connect with Teresa Watanabe, a journalist at the Los Angeles Times for over 3 decades. We discuss the Timesdecision to refer to the forced removal and lock up of Japanese Americans during World War II as “incarceration,” as well as the Times apology for the inflammatory rhetoric and support of incarnation following Executive Order 9066. Teresa shares her own family’s story of incarceration by the American government as we discuss the importance of how we tell history and how we report the news. As she says in our conversation, “Words really matter. They make such a huge difference.”
Contents
Books
Our public podcast service, paired with millions of discounted books curated into topic-themed collections, provides guidance and tools to support lifelong learning.
Guest
Teresa Watanabe covers education for the Los Angeles Times. Since joining the Times in 1989, she has covered immigration, ethnic communities, religion, Pacific Rim business and served as Tokyo correspondent and bureau chief. She also covered Asia, national affairs and state government for the San Jose Mercury News and wrote editorials for the Los Angeles Herald Examiner. A Seattle native, she graduated from USC in journalism and in East Asian languages and culture.
"I came of age during the Asian American, the Black, the students of color movements. I came into this field with that burning mission to raise up underutilized or underserved people and voices."
Credits
Chapters is a multi-part series concerning the history and the lessons of civil rights violations or civil liberties injustices carried out against communities or populations—including civil rights violations or civil liberties injustices that are perpetrated on the basis of an individual’s race, national origin, immigration status, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
This project was made possible with support from Chapman University and The California Civil Liberties Public Education Program, a state-funded grant project of the California State Library.
Guest: Teresa Watanabe
Hosts: Jon-Barrett Ingels
Produced by: Past Forward
Transcription
[music]
[00:00:03] Teresa Watanabe: The LA Times was one of the primary institutions on the West Coast that had really fanned the flames of yellow peril. I went back into the archives to read what the LA Times had said about it. It was really shocking, the racist coverage that they had, the way that they completely painted all Americans of Japanese ancestry as unworthy of trust. They needed to be rounded up for the protection of America. They had to be sequestered somewhere in some remote camp. The fact that the LA Times finally came around on the 75th anniversary was gratifying, but it was really long overdue.
[00:00:45] Host: Welcome to the fifth installment of the Chapters podcast series. I'm your host, Jon-Barrett Ingels. In our Chapters series, we focus on stories surrounding the exclusion, forced removal, and incarceration of Japanese Americans. In this chapter, we explore the word "incarceration." In the wake of the Los Angeles Times' decision to commit to use the word "incarceration" when describing what happened to 120,000 Japanese Americans after Executive Order 9066, we want to look at how language changes the narrative of US history.
We compare the incarceration of Japanese Americans to our current carceral system, examining the laws, the rights, the livelihood, and the aftermath of being incarcerated. We connect with artists, educators, journalists, lawyers, and social justice advocates to reassess the challenges of our past and the challenges that lay before us.
In this episode, we connect with Los Angeles Times journalist Teresa Watanabe, whose family was incarcerated after Executive Order 9066, and who also wrote about the Times' decision to discontinue the use of the word "internment" and instead refer to the experience as “incarceration.”
In your words, I'd love for you to tell me what the difference is between incarceration and internment.
[00:02:11] Teresa: Sure. Well, there is a difference. Incarceration as used in the context of the World War II mass and forced removal of Japanese Americans from the West Coast and their incarceration in camps. Incarceration is more accurate because these people, including my family, were basically imprisoned in these camps that were surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards in towers. They were not allowed to leave. They had to uproot themselves. So many of my friends and relatives lost their homes, their families, all of that. They were imprisoned.
Versus internment, which, technically speaking, was something that happened to people classified as enemy aliens during World War II. That would've been Japanese, Italian, and German nationals who were part of the Axis powers. They were sent to internment camps run by the US Department of Justice. Under the Geneva Convention, they were given hearings and allowed to make a case as to why they were not a threat to national security. That due process was never granted to my parents, my aunties and uncles, and our community members who were just uprooted, told to leave their homes, and they were imprisoned or incarcerated in these remote camps.
[00:03:50] Host: I'd love for you to talk a little more about your family's experience and maybe use your family to differentiate these two terms as well.
[00:04:00] Teresa: Yes, for sure. After Pearl Harbor, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941, my grandfather was one of the first Japanese nationals to be rounded up. The FBI came to the house and my father was not there, but my uncle was there. He recalls that it was so traumatic. They just came to the house. They picked him up without any explanation why and then they took him away. The family had no idea where he went.
He was, in fact, sent to an internment camp. He had a hearing and he said that he was not a threat to national security. He was a peaceful man living in Seattle where he ran a produce stand in the Pike Place Market. He was not a threat, but his plea was rejected. He was interned for the duration of the war, versus what happened to my parents and aunties and uncles after they took my grandfather away.
In 1942, the US government put out an announcement that all people of Japanese ancestry were ordered to leave their homes on the West Coast. They could only take what they could carry in one suitcase. You could imagine, it was so traumatic and tearful to have to leave your pets because you couldn't take your pets and leave so many things behind. They were sent to a temporary assembly center, which, in my parents' case, was the Puyallup fairgrounds in the state of Washington. They were made to sleep in pens that were used for farm animals.
They could even smell the farm animals that had been vacated so that the people could be put there. Then they were all shipped off to Minidoka incarceration camp in Idaho. They were just stuck there. It was desolate. It was remote. There was almost nothing there other than hastily erected barracks that it was so cold during the winter. It was so hot during the summer. There was a lot of winds that blew dust into the barracks. It was just super miserable. There, they were incarcerated.
[00:06:59] Host: Without due process.
“It was really traumatic all the way around, but there was a distinct difference because my grandfather was given this hearing. He was given due process even though he was not a US citizen. The irony is that my parents were born and raised in Seattle as US citizens. They were given no due process. Nobody was. That's what was so outrageous about it.”
[00:07:00] Teresa: Without due process at all. Both my mother and father at the time were in college. My mother was studying at Seattle University and my father was doing-- I think he started at the University of Washington, and then he went over to a business school. They were both taken out of school. A lot of people were. They were just thrown into this camp. It was really traumatic all the way around, but there was a distinct difference because my grandfather was given this hearing. He was given due process even though he was not a US citizen. The irony is that my parents were born and raised in Seattle as US citizens. They were given no due process. Nobody was. That's what was so outrageous about it.
"That was the language that we grew up with hearing. When our parents did talk about it, they talked about the evacuation, they talked about the relocation, and they talked about being in relocation centers. It was only later as my generation started pressing our parents and our grandparents to talk about it. It was, 'Wait, this was not a relocation. This was not an evacuation. This was mass force removal and mass incarceration.'"
[00:07:59] Host: When you were growing up, how much of these stories were shared with you?
[00:08:05] Teresa: They were not shared. You've probably heard that it was such a traumatic episode in the life of our families and our communities that nobody talked about it. It was only after, I believe, when I got to high school and I started taking some classes about Asian-American history and then, of course, in the college, I did. I did start talking to my parents about it.
At the time, there was a movement to try to get our elders to talk about this. There was a movement to try to press for redress and reparations for them. When I did talk to them, it was interesting because it was all couched in euphemistic language. I know that you were interested in the topic of language, but the way the US government had characterized this whole episode was euphemistically as the mass and forced removal of 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry was considered or called a relocation. They were evacuated into these relocation centers making it seem like the government was doing this for the protection of the community.
That was the language that we grew up with hearing. When our parents did talk about it, they talked about the evacuation, they talked about the relocation, and they talked about being in relocation centers. It was only later as my generation started pressing our parents and our grandparents to talk about it. It was, "Wait, this was not a relocation. This was not an evacuation. This was mass force removal and mass incarceration."
Eventually, the language has started evolving. I was so proud that the Los Angeles Times, which is the publication I work for, officially announced that they were dropping the word "internment camp" and would use "incarceration" going forward because they said language matters. To be accurate, it was an incarceration and not an internment.
[00:10:34] Host: That choice by the Times, did that change the way you viewed this experience of your family or had you already come to that understanding?
[00:10:45] Teresa: It's so interesting, but I had only really come to that understanding probably a few years ago. Maybe 2019 was when the Japanese American National Museum had a forum on a lot of this on language. Speaking of language, at that time, it was a big debate about whether these camps should be called “concentration camps.” There's a whole history about that because Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was the one who signed the Executive Order 9066 declaring that the Japanese had to leave the West Coast, he initially called them concentration camps.
Then after that, the War Relocation Authority, which was in charge of the whole incarceration process, stopped calling it concentration camps. That's when they started calling it evacuation, relocation centers. Then the Japanese American National Museum, I think in-- Actually, 1972 was the first time that the state of California called it a concentration camp when they made a plaque for Manzanar. On the plaque, it said, "Manzanar was the first of 10 concentration camps that imprisoned Japanese Americans during World War II."
Then in 1990s, the Japanese American National Museum had an exhibit about this whole history where they called it America's Concentration Camps. That created a backlash among some people in the Jewish community who objected to the use of concentration camps because they felt that was a term that was so exclusively used to describe the horrors of the concentration camps against six million Jews during World War II.
[00:12:36] Host: Which were essentially death camps.
[00:12:38] Teresa: Death camps, yes. In the context of the Jewish experience, they were death camps. For Japanese Americans to use it, some Jewish community members felt it demeaned the historical atrocities experienced by the Jewish community. There's been all of this controversy discussion about, "What do you call these things and who owns the terms and under what circumstances should you use it?"
I personally don't use the phrase "concentration camp" to describe the Japanese camps because I just personally feel that the atrocities that were experienced under the Nazis by the Jewish community was just so horrific. They were death camps. The Japanese did not experience anything like that. Many of my fellow community members do use the phrase "concentration camp." I think it really depends. The LA Times does not use "concentration camps." We just use "incarceration."
[00:13:45] Host: You said you were proud of that moment, of that shift of language from the LA Times. Also, in 2017, the LA Times issued a formal apology for the way that they supported the actions of the American government 75 years earlier with Executive Order 9066. What was your personal experience of the organization issuing that apology?
[00:14:16] Teresa: Well, finally, it's about time. [chuckles] It was a long, long time coming. The LA Times was one of the primary institutions on the West Coast that had really fanned the flames of yellow peril. I went back into the archives to read what the LA Times had said about it. It was really shocking, the racist coverage that they had, the way that they completely painted all Americans of Japanese ancestry as unworthy of trust. They needed to be rounded up. For the protection of America, they had to be sequestered somewhere in some remote camp. I think we even ran a column by a columnist that said something like, "Just round them up and just put them away." The fact that the LA Times finally came around on the 75th anniversary was gratifying, but it was really long overdue.
[00:15:23] Host: Right.
[00:15:24] Teresa: I have to say that my first job was as an editorial writer with the Los Angeles Herald Examiner in the 1980s. I have to say that even though the Hearst newspapers were even more provocative in fanning those yellow peril flames, I was able to talk the editorial page editor and the editorial board into apologizing for the incarceration. Hearst newspaper actually did the apology probably-- What was it? The 1980s. It was maybe 20 years before the LA Times came around to doing the same thing.
"Well, it was actually my colleague, the late great Henry Fuhrmann, who really started the campaign at the LA Times to change the language. Henry was an assistant managing editor over the copy desk and the standards and practices. He began pushing really hard to change the language. He went on what was then known as Twitter and had posted this multi-post series arguing why we needed to change the language and pointing out that internment was a euphemistic term. It was used to cloak the gravity of what the US government had done to its own citizens. Incarceration was much more accurate."
[00:16:07] Host: Do you feel like your role at the LA Times had any influence in either the apology or changing the language that they use?
[00:16:19] Teresa: Well, it was actually my colleague, the late great Henry Fuhrmann, who really started the campaign at the LA Times to change the language. Henry was an assistant managing editor over the copy desk and the standards and practices. He began pushing really hard to change the language. He went on what was then known as Twitter and had posted this multi-post series arguing why we needed to change the language and pointing out that internment was a euphemistic term. It was used to cloak the gravity of what the US government had done to its own citizens. Incarceration was much more accurate. He also pointed out that internment, of course, was technically inaccurate because it was really used more to describe the experience of what happened to the Italian, German, and Jewish nationals. Really, all credit goes to Henry for starting this. I'm really, really grateful. Unfortunately, he passed away a few years ago, but we all look to Henry as the leader at the LA Times for pushing this change forward.
“I have always sought out the underdog. I've always sought out the people without a voice. I came of age during the Asian American, the Black, the students of color movements. I came into this field with that burning mission to raise up underutilized or underserved people and voices.”
[00:17:46] Host: In the 2017 apology that the LA Times wrote, they actually added some of what was written 75 years ago. I wanted to read some of the quotes from 75 years ago, "This is war. In wartime, the preservation of the nation becomes the first duty. Everything must be subordinated to that. Every necessary precaution must be taken to ensure reasonable safety from spies and saboteurs so that our armed forces can function adequately and our industrial machinery may continue to work free from peril."
Then they also wrote, "As a race, the Japanese have made for themselves a record for conscienceless treachery unsurpassed in history. Whatever small theoretical advantages there might be in releasing those under restraint in this country would be enormously outweighed by the risks involved." I know you can't speak for the publication, but as a journalist, what efforts do you take to make sure that you are on the right side of history, that what you write doesn't need to be retracted or apologized for 75 years later?
[00:19:08] Teresa: It's shocking when you hear that language today and almost unimaginable that that could have been written by the publication that I have worked for for 35 years back in the day. I really take the responsibility as a journalist very seriously. I do try to stay on the right side of history. It's why when I got into journalism, I really wanted to use my role as a way to make sure that underserved communities have a voice.
When I covered religion for a while, for instance, I really intentionally decided to cover Islam and the Muslim community more. Because when I came on to the religion beat in 1998, we really were not covering the Muslim community very much. We were primarily covering the Jewish and Christian communities.
I have always sought out the underdog. I've always sought out the people without a voice. I came of age during the Asian American, the Black, the students of color movements. I came into this field with that burning mission to raise up underutilized or underserved people and voices. One of the things I did do was I did a magazine article after, of course, 9/11. As you recall, there were a lot of voices raising the very same questions about the Muslim community that they had raised about the Japanese-American community. There were even some calls to intern them or incarcerate them, which was unbelievable. Thankfully, no one ever did. That didn't go very far.
I wrote a magazine piece drawing parallels between what had happened to my family during World War II and what was happening with the Muslim community after 9/11. I quoted one scholar saying that the critical similarity with the two cases is that people were casting doubt and mistrust and aspersion on them, not for what they had done, but what people feared they would do because people feared that Japanese-American citizens would somehow be loyal to Japan and become espionage agents and saboteurs. They feared that Muslim Americans would somehow be more loyal to their home country, their ancestral countries.
[00:21:55] Host: Their faith, yes.
[00:21:58] Teresa: Yet, in the case of the Japanese, there was not one Japanese American who was ever found to have been a spy or a traitor. There were no Muslims as well who had ever been accused or found guilty of that either. I've just tried to stay really conscious of anything that could somehow invite the same kind of unjust treatment that occurred with my community and just be there to make sure that I do my part that such things don't happen again.
[00:22:35] Host: I read one of the articles you shared with me. I don't know if it was the same one that you were talking about. Right after 9/11, you were speaking with your family. Some of your aunties who actually were incarcerated after Executive Order 9066 were saying that they supported the politics, the anti-Muslim rhetoric because we had to protect our country. I thought that was so interesting having lived through what they lived through and then seen, "Well, this is different. This is a different scenario."
[00:23:18] Teresa: I got to tell you, my jaw dropped when my auntie said that. I did not expect them to say that. I just came away going, "Whoa." That's why the last sentence of that piece was, "I wonder what we learn." Because we experienced this, we remember, but what do we learn? That night, I sat around with all my aunties and uncles. They talked about how the whole incarceration had affected them, had destroyed our family ties.
In fact, one of my uncles who I love, we all love my uncle, but my aunties were so disapproving, saying that without the family patriarch there to control him, he just went wild. That's when he went downhill, which also surprised me to hear that coming out of my aunties. Then they're talking about what a traumatic experience it was and then they turn around and say, "But in the case of Muslims, we have to support our government for what they're doing." It's like, "What?" That was quite shocking to me to hear that.
"As journalists, we have to be so careful about the words that we use. That has come up now in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian confrontations, which I cover now higher education. The past year, I've been covering all of the campus protests. We have, even within the paper, really had discussions about, how do we describe all of this? What do we say?"
[00:24:39] Host: I watched another video interview that you gave. You used the term "LA uprising" in this video describing the aftermath of the Rodney King beating and the officers' acquittal in 1992. “Uprising” and “riots” have significantly different connotations just like incarceration and internment. It's not just about what is reported. It is about how it is reported. We still haven't come to a place of agreement on how we talk about what happened in 1992 or how we talk about what happened across the country in 2020. Those words and what we choose to use are so powerful in creating the narrative.
[00:25:29] Teresa: Words really matter. They make such a huge difference. If you think of riot, you just think of people running amuck. You think that these people are breaking the law. They're, without justification, just tearing up streets and looting stores and things like that. Then when you use the word "uprising," you're thinking they're rising up against injustice. It makes such a difference.
As journalists, we have to be so careful about the words that we use. That has come up now in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian confrontations, which I cover now higher education. The past year, I've been covering all of the campus protests. We have, even within the paper, really had discussions about, how do we describe all of this? What do we say? We have settled on the Israel-Hamas war, but then some of the pro-Palestinian people will tell me, "That is inaccurate. It's not a war." It's a one-sided assault by a military superpower, which is Israel, against these essentially little armed, defenseless Palestinians. It's a never-ending exercise. What language can you use that's accurate and that is not inflammatory and doesn't lean toward one side or the other? It's really difficult.
[00:27:11] Host: When you have terms like "terrorism" and "genocide" and there's no agreement because both terms could work on either side, I can imagine even here in our country, “insurrection” is such a powerful word. “Mass shootings.” There are so many powerful words that trigger, that definitely bring more eyeballs to what the piece is, but I imagine that's got to be a challenge to come to an agreement as a publication on how you use this language.
[00:28:05] Teresa: Well, that's why we have a standards and practice committee within the paper. They are the ones that look at these issues and consider everything and then let us know, what is our style? What do we call it? Right now, we're seeing the Israel-Hamas war, which doesn't make everybody happy. We also don't call Hamas "terrorists" in print. We call them "Hamas militants," which a lot of people who do consider Hamas terrorists are not happy with. [chuckles] It's really tough because everybody has their ideas about what we should call certain people or certain things. As they say, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter, depending on what your political views are.
[00:28:54] Host: Then you have to remain unbiased and you have to maintain the trust of the public in this era where news comes really fast. Really fast. We all have access to it on these devices, but there's also seeds of distrust of the news media as well. In my work with these podcasts, I cover a lot of sensitive histories. I engage with marginalized communities. I'm also always very conscious of the fact that I may say something wrong. I may use the wrong language.
As our language changes quickly with regards to what's appropriate with how we describe a group or an individual or a historic incident, I know that there's a lot I need to stay on top of. I know in the past, I've done five seasons of this series about the Japanese-American incarceration. I know I've referred to it as internment, but what advice would you give me for moving forward to maintain respect and sensitivity with my guests and topics?
[00:30:11] Teresa: I think you're doing a great job. I really, really appreciate you taking up the topic and exploring this and hopefully bringing more public awareness to it. So many people I know use the term "internment" and they don't mean any harm by it. When people use that word, and honestly until that Japanese American National Museum event, I also use the word "internment" in my writing. It was only just a few years ago that I personally started using incarceration because I didn't understand quite the difference. It was the term that I had grown up with.
Many Japanese Americans, they still do call it internment camp. In fact, I would say the vast majority still do. It's just a matter of building awareness little by little, understanding that people who may use the term "internment" or whatever, most of the time, they don't mean any harm. Give people grace and just help educate them. I really appreciate you doing this podcast so that, hopefully, more people can learn about why more Japanese Americans are now asking that people use the word "incarceration" rather than the euphemistic term "internment."
[00:31:43] Host: We want to thank Teresa Watanabe and the Los Angeles Times. Chapters podcast was produced by Past Forward and made possible with support from Chapman University and California Civil Liberties Public Education Program, a state-funded grant project of the California State Library. For more information, visit pastforward.org, chapman.edu, and library.ca.gov.
