In early May, Florida governor Ron DeSantis signed into law a measure prohibiting Chinese nationals from purchasing land in the state. DeSantis described the law as essential to preventing the Chinese Communist Party from infiltrating Florida. “Today, Florida makes it very clear we don’t want the CCP in the Sunshine State,” he said. “We want to maintain this as the free state of Florida.” DeSantis provided no evidence that Floridians were actually endangered by Chinese communism, but he was preparing to announce his candidacy for the 2024 Republican nomination for president, and he appeared to believe that China-bashing would play well with Republican voters.
Hey H.W. I appreciate the article and enjoyed reading. I have many questions that I admit to being a little concerned to ask because it’s hard to say enough caveats in this forum, but i’ll barrel on. I feel I’m missing some context: I’m wondering about how important the American’s segregating Japanese immigrant’s school children really was to Japanese leaders versus other infractions of the time. Did this barely tip the scale or was this actually a big deal? I’ll ask the question in a really bald, simple way: why did Japanese leaders care [let me be clear, I am NOT defending the segregation practice!!] about how America treated the people that left Japan to live and raise their kids in America? Maybe I’m petty, but I could imagine in the shoes of Japanese leadership: if families leave my country to live permanently in another, I’m feeling some kind of way about what that says about the state of my homeland to the rest of the world. Why was the Japanese leaders’ feeling not “well you made your choice to leave, y’all. The matcha’ s not really greener, eh?” What was the motivation in getting involved with their expatriates’ welfare? Was it really just the racial offense that America broadly lumping the Japanese schoolchildren in with the Chinese children? [again, not at all saying any of this was ok!!] It seems this wasn’t about defending the kids at all--right, at least from the Japanese leaders perspective? Switching perspectives: how did Teddy convince people that Japanese leaders weren’t just interested in planting spies all over the place, as ridiculous DeSantis is implying?
The U.S. and Japan had a history at this point. In the 1850s the U.S. had forced Japan to open to trade, sending a warship to Tokyo Bay and threatening to start firing if Japan didn't agree to a trade treaty. The gunboat diplomacy worked, but created resentment. In the Russo-Japanese War, Japan commenced with a sneak attack against Russia that was very successful. The Japanese government told the Japanese people that the war was a big success. They spoke too soon and too much. The war bogged down as Russia put its weight into the conflict. The Japanese government accepted TR's offer of mediation and came away with less than the government had led the Japanese people to expect. Under criticism, the government blamed the Americans for having tricked and bullied them again. They redirected the popular criticism toward the US. The action of the Californians came after all this, and the Japanese were primed to take offense. The government encouraged them to, to keep the heat off the government. But that put the government in a position where it had to react to the California laws. Your suspicion that a lot of this was for show is correct. But it was a show the Japanese government had helped create, and had to play out.
We weren’t ready in 1941 either, we’re we? And Hitler certainly wasn’t ready in 1936 or even 1938. Franklin’s point is well taken. I’d just add that peace isn’t always an option, and fighting when your opponent is still unprepared is much better than giving him time to get prepared.
Benjamin Franklin said, "There never was a good war or a bad peace." To the diplomats, peace is almost always better than war. If war had broken out in the Western Pacific in 1906, the United States might well have lost to Japan. Japan was prepared for war; the United States was not. But it is certainly a reasonable question to ask.
Hey H.W. I appreciate the article and enjoyed reading. I have many questions that I admit to being a little concerned to ask because it’s hard to say enough caveats in this forum, but i’ll barrel on. I feel I’m missing some context: I’m wondering about how important the American’s segregating Japanese immigrant’s school children really was to Japanese leaders versus other infractions of the time. Did this barely tip the scale or was this actually a big deal? I’ll ask the question in a really bald, simple way: why did Japanese leaders care [let me be clear, I am NOT defending the segregation practice!!] about how America treated the people that left Japan to live and raise their kids in America? Maybe I’m petty, but I could imagine in the shoes of Japanese leadership: if families leave my country to live permanently in another, I’m feeling some kind of way about what that says about the state of my homeland to the rest of the world. Why was the Japanese leaders’ feeling not “well you made your choice to leave, y’all. The matcha’ s not really greener, eh?” What was the motivation in getting involved with their expatriates’ welfare? Was it really just the racial offense that America broadly lumping the Japanese schoolchildren in with the Chinese children? [again, not at all saying any of this was ok!!] It seems this wasn’t about defending the kids at all--right, at least from the Japanese leaders perspective? Switching perspectives: how did Teddy convince people that Japanese leaders weren’t just interested in planting spies all over the place, as ridiculous DeSantis is implying?
The U.S. and Japan had a history at this point. In the 1850s the U.S. had forced Japan to open to trade, sending a warship to Tokyo Bay and threatening to start firing if Japan didn't agree to a trade treaty. The gunboat diplomacy worked, but created resentment. In the Russo-Japanese War, Japan commenced with a sneak attack against Russia that was very successful. The Japanese government told the Japanese people that the war was a big success. They spoke too soon and too much. The war bogged down as Russia put its weight into the conflict. The Japanese government accepted TR's offer of mediation and came away with less than the government had led the Japanese people to expect. Under criticism, the government blamed the Americans for having tricked and bullied them again. They redirected the popular criticism toward the US. The action of the Californians came after all this, and the Japanese were primed to take offense. The government encouraged them to, to keep the heat off the government. But that put the government in a position where it had to react to the California laws. Your suspicion that a lot of this was for show is correct. But it was a show the Japanese government had helped create, and had to play out.
We weren’t ready in 1941 either, we’re we? And Hitler certainly wasn’t ready in 1936 or even 1938. Franklin’s point is well taken. I’d just add that peace isn’t always an option, and fighting when your opponent is still unprepared is much better than giving him time to get prepared.
Whether peace with China is an option I don’t know.
Were the few years of peace bought in the 1930s a godsend? Or did they make the coming war worse?
Similar question about the gentlemen’s agreement with Japan.
Benjamin Franklin said, "There never was a good war or a bad peace." To the diplomats, peace is almost always better than war. If war had broken out in the Western Pacific in 1906, the United States might well have lost to Japan. Japan was prepared for war; the United States was not. But it is certainly a reasonable question to ask.