Race Relations & the Non-Internment of Japanese Americans in Hawai‘i (Study Notes)

Historical Context

Hawai‘i entered World War II with a large, long-resident Japanese‐American (JA) population and a social order routinely described—by local boosters and many mainland observers—as remarkably tolerant and egalitarian.

Japanese immigration began in $1868$ (the Gannenmono group) and expanded after $1885$ with government-sponsored contract labor.
By the start of the 1940s JAs numbered $\approx 160{,}000$ , or $\approx 37\%$ of the territorial population, easily the single largest ethnic bloc.
On $7\,\text{Dec}\,1941$ Pearl Harbor was attacked; martial law followed the same afternoon.
Internment outcomes: only $1{,}466$ Hawai‘i JAs were held locally and $1{,}875$ were transferred to mainland camps, versus $\approx 120{,}000$ mainland JAs removed en masse.

The Puzzle of Non-Internment

Why, given deep‐seated anti-Japanese attitudes, did Hawai‘i avoid mass removal? Scholars have proposed a layered set of explanations:

Labor Shortage Argument – Removing $\approx 160{,}000$ people (many in agriculture, construction, services) would paralyze an economy now geared to the Pacific war.
Logistical / Financial Barriers – Ships were unavailable; housing, guarding and feeding tens of thousands would cost millions the military preferred to spend elsewhere.
Leadership Factor – General Delos Emmons, Colonel Kendall Fielder, FBI agent Robert Shivers (all Southerners) allegedly absorbed a “local ethos” of relative tolerance and refused to order evacuation.
Race-Relations Thesis – A long tradition of “interracial amity,” “aloha spirit,” and high intermarriage supposedly made mass action politically unthinkable.

Jonathan Okamura (2000) accepts that race mattered but ranks it secondary to economic, logistical, and strategic needs.

The Classic "Racial Paradise" Narrative

Key architects:

Carey McWilliams – In Prejudice, Japanese-Americans (1944) claimed “effective interracial solidarity had been established in Hawai‘i before the war.”
Andrew W. Lind – Japanese in Hawai‘i Under War Conditions (1943) and The Japanese in Hawaii: An Experiment in Democracy (1946) framed Hawai‘i as guided by a persistent “tradition of interracial amity.”
Romanzo Adams – Identified an “unorthodox race doctrine of Hawai‘i”: high intermarriage rates prove social equality.
Bernhard Hormann – Described cordiality as a “continuous force” propelling further tolerance.
Commission on Wartime Relocation (CWRIC, 1982) – Put “more tolerant race relations” first among many factors explaining non-incarceration.

Okamura’s Critique of the Myth

Historical Anti‐JA Racism – Periodic “anti-Japanese movements” erupted from the early 1900s through the 1970s. Examples include:
- 1909 strike (5,000 JA + 3,000 Filipino sugar workers).
- 1920 strike; press framed it as a plot for Japanese control.
- 1921‐23 Americanization drive (restrictions on JA language schools, “anarchistic publications” act).
Occupational Inequality – Census $1940$ data show:
- Largest male JA categories: laborers & craftworkers $19\%$ , operatives $12\%$ , service workers $8\%$ .
- Only $\approx 3\%$ JA men were professionals ( $5.5\%$ by $1950$ ).
- JAs filled $\tfrac{3}{4}$ of domestic service posts, $\tfrac{1}{2}$ of small farmers/fishermen, $\tfrac{5}{8}$ auto mechanics.
Income Gaps (1938) – Mean annual salary: haole $\$1,558$ vs. JA $\$924$ vs. Filipino $\$802$ .
Political Domination – Haole Republican oligarchy (“Big Five”: Alexander & Baldwin, Castle & Cooke, American Factors, C. Brewer, Theo. Davies) controlled territorial politics $1900–1954$ .
Survey Evidence (1946) – In Lind & Hormann’s own poll $48.2\%$ of UH students said their group faced discrimination; $54.4\%$ of JAs agreed. Haole respondents both minimized and rationalized prejudice.
Violent Flashpoints – Massie case (1931-32), Myles Fukunaga lynching panic (1928), Hanapēpē ( $1924$ ) and Hilo ( $1938$ ) “massacres” exhibit recurring racial tension.

Anti-Japanese Stereotypes and Policy

“Unassimilable Jap” trope: Territorial Senator Doc Hill – “A Jap is a Jap even after a thousand years.”
Loyalty Fears – “Japanese Problem” reports $1918$ , $1930s$ asked what to do “in case of war.”
Press / Navy statements (1932) depicted rural Hawai‘i as unsafe for white women.
Legislative Attempts – Language-school bills, anti-“anarchistic publications,” joint resolution (1921) requesting Chinese labor to replace JAs.

World War II: Martial Law and Selective Internment

Martial law (8 Dec 1941) applied to all but was expressly crafted to monitor JAs—“fundamentally an anti-Japanese act” (Okihiro).
Nonetheless planners rejected mass deportation. Prominent lone advocate: John Balch (Mutual Telephone) circulated “Shall the Japanese Be Allowed to Dominate Hawai‘i?” urging removal of $100{,}000$ JAs, replacement by Puerto Ricans/California Mexicans.
Social–economic interdependence plus business opposition made the idea politically untenable.

Post-War Transformation: The Nisei Veterans & Democratic Revolution

442nd RCT + 100th Battalion supplied $35\%$ of all Hawai‘i soldiers while comprising only $1\%$ of U.S. armed forces. Heavy casualties galvanized JAs.
Veterans such as Daniel Inouye, Sakae Takahashi led Democratic insurgency; by $1954$ the party captured both legislative houses (the “Democratic Revolution”). $17$ JA legislators elected that year joined $5$ Senate hold-overs.
Incidents of continuing racism: Inouye in uniform denied restaurant service, haircut on mainland.

Intermarriage: Statistics vs. Symbolism

Adams popularized intermarriage as the litmus of harmony, yet $1940–41$ in-group marriage rates were still $96\%$ (JA grooms) and $91\%$ (JA brides)—highest of any group.
High exogamy among other groups (esp. Native Hawaiian, Chinese) bolstered the paradise image, but JA reluctance showed barriers persisted.

Analytical Synthesis: Race as a Secondary Yet Necessary Variable

Primary Deterrent – Economic indispensability: JA labor in plantations, construction, food, and services was mission-critical.
Race Relations Constraint – While hardly egalitarian, Hawai‘i’s multigroup structure produced extensive everyday interethnic contact (shared schools, jobs, neighborhoods). That web of ties made large-scale collective violence or deportation socially and politically harder to launch.
Ideological Cover – The “aloha” mythology allowed elites to defend the status quo and deflect mainland scrutiny, even as inequality endured.

Ethical & Practical Implications

The gap between representation (aloha spirit) and structure (occupational, political hierarchy) demonstrates how racial projects legitimate dominance.
Understanding this disjunction cautions against uncritical celebration of diversity narratives that mask systemic disparities.
For policy: merely citing cultural tolerance is insufficient; structural metrics (income, education, political voice) are necessary to gauge true equality.

Numerics & Equations Quick Reference

Interned in Hawai‘i $=1{,}466$ ; transferred $=1{,}875$ ; mainland evacuees $\approx 120{,}000$ .
JA share of workforce >33\%; share of Pearl Harbor civilian jobs $\approx 0\%$ (banned).
Salary gap \text{Haole}:\$1,558 > \text{JA}:\$924 > \text{Filipino}:\$802 (1938).
Survey discrimination perception $p_{JA}=0.544$ .
Intermarriage $r<em>{JA\,grooms}=0.96$ , $r</em>{JA\,brides}=0.91$ .

Key Individuals & Works (Study List)

Carey McWilliams – Prejudice, Japanese-Americans (1944)
Andrew W. Lind – Japanese in Hawai‘i (1943, 1946); People of Hawaii (1980)
Romanzo Adams – “Unorthodox Race Doctrine” (1934)
Bernhard Hormann – “Race Relations in Hawai‘i” (1952)
Jonathan Okamura – article summarized here (2000); “Illusion of Paradise” (1998)
Gary Okihiro – Cane Fires (1991)
Georg Fuchs – Hawai‘i Pono (1961)
Commission on Wartime Relocation – Personal Justice Denied (1982)
Daniel Inouye, Sakae Takahashi – VA leaders / politicians

Timeline Cheat-Sheet

$1868$ – First Japanese migrants (Gannenmono)
$1885–1900$ – Government contract labor era
$1909$ – First multiethnic plantation strike (JA & Filipino)
$1920$ – O‘ahu strike; anti-JA hysteria peaks
$1921$ – Language school regulation, Chinese-labor resolution
$1928$ – Fukunaga case
$1931–32$ – Massie case
$1938$ – Hilo massacre
$7\,\text{Dec}\,1941$ – Pearl Harbor; martial law
$1942$ – Mainland mass evacuation; Hawai‘i selective internment
$1943–45$ – 442nd RCT / 100th Battalion combat
$1946$ – Lind’s Experiment in Democracy
$1954$ – Democratic Revolution in Hawai‘i
$1982$ – CWRIC report, Lind article on race relations
$2000$ – Okamura publishes critique

Concluding Insight

Japanese Americans in Hawai‘i avoided the fate of their mainland cousins not because the islands were a racial utopia but because economics, logistics, and complex interdependencies rendered mass removal impractical. The cherished narrative of “aloha harmony” functioned mainly as an ideological shield—protecting haole privilege while obscuring pervasive inequality. Real‐world application: always interrogate celebratory multicultural stories; measure the structures beneath the symbols.