A Cruel Irony
A cruel irony awaited many Japanese Canadians who “chose” to go to Japan. As a defeated country, Japan may have been forced by Canada to accept them, but there was no obligation on Japan to treat them as their own. The Canadian-born Nisei thus found themselves categorized, in Japan as “aliens.” They had become totally rootless exiles.
- This "Certificate for Registration of Alien" was an identification card for a Japanese Canadian who was treated as an "enemy alien" in Canada, and exiled under the "repatriation" program. Ironically, when she landed in Japan, as a Canadian-born person, she was considered a Canadian citizen and thus an "alien" in Japan. On the card her name is written in katakana, a syllabic script used for foreign names and words. Japanese names are normally written using ideogrammic characters called kanji. - Irene (Kato) Tsuyuki
The purpose behind the either/or options – “dispersal” versus “repatriation” – was, of course to force Japanese Canadians out of BC permanently, which in effect would prevent them from rebuilding their community on the coast. They were not permitted the third option, to remain in BC; nor were their family members, trapped in Japan by the war, permitted to come back to Canada. The coercive thrust of these policies was implicit in the bureaucratic language of the “dispersal” notice: refusal to relocate east of the Rockies would be taken as evidence of disloyalty.
Japanese Canadians were aware that resistance to the parameters of this limited “choice” would be judged an act of disloyalty, which could very well result in deportation later. That was their interpretation to the warning in the government’s “dispersal” order that those who did not leave BC “may seriously prejudice their own future by delay.” Their fears were further reinforced by Prime Minister King’s announcement proposing the “establishment of a quasi-judicial commission to examine the background, loyalties and attitudes of all persons of Japanese race in Canada to ascertain those who are not fit persons to be allowed to remain here” (Debates, House of Commons, August 4, 1944).
In August 1944, in the House of Commons speech declaring the innocence of Japanese Canadians, Prime Minister Kind went on to justify his government’s dispersal policy:
“The sound policy and the best policy for the Japanese Canadians themselves is to distribute their numbers as widely as possible throughout the country where they will not create feelings of racial hostility.” (Debates, House of Commons, August 4, 1944).
By posting a rationale for the dispersal policy, Prime Minister King exposed the nature of the government’s victimization of Japanese Canadians. Rather than addressing the question of national security, the government’s alleged reason for the euphemistic “evacuation,” he dwelt on their visibility as a group and blamed the hostility towards them on the fact of their being “visible.”
Japanese Canadians, King reasoned, became victims because of their visible racial ancestry. Adopting the language of racism, he then reinforced their victimization by explaining that the dispersal policy was designed for their benefit. Once dispersed, and so not visible as a group – one that might act together with the political power a community implies – they would no longer be in a position to “create feelings of racial hostility.” They would not be politically isolated, and hence powerless individuals without a constituency. King assumed without question that racism existed in Canada, but instead of blaming its source, the white racists in BC, he blamed its victims, Japanese Canadians. By reasoning as he did, King endorsed a policy of cultural genocide and disguised it as benign paternalism. Japanese Canadians themselves were forced to bear the blame for the injustices inflicted on them. The effects of this condition would shape their lives in the years ahead.
Justice in Our Time: The Japanese Canadian Redress Settlement, (1991)., pp. 49-52.
