The house committee on debating Japanese redress for internment was an interesting and admitabliable confusing look into the American action to correct the wrong of Japanese internment. The interest of these committee proceedings lies in how the members of congress who testified for the legislation spoke so passionately and directly about Japanese internment. What really got them was the raw emotion that exists with internment, this is related to how that many of these congressmen interred themselves along with their families. One of the congressmen spoke on a narrative for his family that pretty much lived the American dream. He spoke on how his family who immigrated to American lived in California who opened a produce store and had just given the down payment of a house. This life was essentially the idealist American dream that is so often spoken of in America. But, these immigrants had their dream stripped away from them during interment due to simply their ancestry and nothing more. So the visceral image of people being stripped of the dream they spend their lives working towards is in itself horrible.
The aspect of this hearing that really surprised me was the dissenting opinion of those who did not support the legislation. The first dissenting opinion was an older man that harped on the idea of pearl harbor and the horror of pearl harbor and how people did not expect pearl harbor. Which was a strange aspect of the negative opinion he tried to say how wartime hysteria was partially correct or at least justified. While the other dissenting opinion did offer a more balance or at least intellectual perspective on the subject. The surprise can be with the congressmen who came in right at the end of the time we had to watch who gave the most touching testimony who destroyed the opposition.
Overall the testimony was interesting on the disconnect that was felt between the two different opinions on the passing of the legislation. As the pro seemed to be emotionally connected to it and that told in their testimonies the con seemed instead to offer a different calculated approach to the idea of no reparations. In the end, the pro matter the most since it was the one adopted by the committee and eventually carried out.