For this week’s blog, I select “Finding Aid for the Collection of Material about Japanese American Internment, 1929-1956 bulk 1942-1946” to interpret and evaluate the collections of Japanese American Internment during the WWII. As shown in the scope and content note, the collection includes publications and press releases by the War Relocation Authority (WRA), as well as yearbooks and pamphlets that focused on the Manzanar and Minidoka internment camps, created by Japanese American internees and advocacy groups. It also includes recordings and transcripts of speeches and selections of published articles on subjects such as segregation within camps, the loyalty of Japanese Americans, resettlement, and the internment process.
The Container List introduces the contents within each of the 3 series. First, Series 1 consists of 2 boxes of publications and speeches sponsored by the WRA. The box and folder listing suggests narratives from an official perspective: reports for the living condition in the camps, and pamphlets advocating Japanese Americans internment, resettlement, and enlistment in the armed forces.
Series 2, on the other hand, includes a box of yearbooks and newsletters written and produced by Japanese American internees from the camps. Thus, it can be inferred that in this section, the internees produce narratives about their lives in the camps.
Ultimately, Series 3 contains a box and a map folder which include printed materials and a recording of a radio broadcast. Since the creators vary from the Japanese American Citizens League to the American Council on Public Affairs, narratives of this section features external reflections on the internment of Japanese Americans.
Based on the records in this collection, I think it is still hard to get a comprehensive understanding of Japanese American Internment. One of the drawbacks in the collection is that except for box 1 of series 1, all of the remaining files are organized in alphabetical order. Instead of grouping the archive according to a specific timeline or topic, the current approach make viewers difficult to compare and analyze historic details such as the change of people’s attitude and treatment inside the camp as the war progressed. Also, the lack of sources from the internees’ perspective (contrast to the 2 boxes of official documents) can lead to significant misrepresentation. Moreover, since this collection features two of the internment camps, it would be more subjective if a broader view on the relationship between the two camps and the other camps is available: did the two mentioned here offer superior resources for the internees? Or were they among the worst camps in the country? To compensate for these shortcomings, I’ll suggest to upgrade the collection by including more interviews and diaries of the internees, assort the documents in a chronological order, and evaluate the status of the featured camps in comparison to other camps in general.
Your post had a really nice flow, making me want to study the archive materials. It was interesting to read that the boxes were separated into groupings that would allow people to get a better understanding of the Japanese internment camps using all those different mediums. I definitely do agree with you that it would be better if the collection could add more sources from other internment camps as well.
Your post really delved into the questions that would arise from looking at what wasn’t present in the archive — and I agree, there is a lot that you talked about that would make a very skewed picture of how Japanese internment during World War II was, if one just looked at this archive. What is in the archive is very interesting though, since there is a notable lack of the Japanese/Japanese-American voice, which is what people usually think of when they think of the Internment camps (ie George Takei). Great post!
I really like the way your post analyzed that the archives were categorized by alphabetical order and how for this type of site it does not really make sense to have it organized that way, but instead should be grouped by event or timeline. I appreciate the way your post went through the 3 series steps in order, made it easy to follow and imagine exactly what was on the blog. I agree that the blog might be mis-leading to what actually happened during WWII.
Nice work here! You showed great insight by noticing that the way an archive is structured can also effect how it is understood. Sometimes the structuring of information highlights the value system held by the archivist or institution. This is why collection policies are so important.
I also did my blog post on the Japanese American Internment Finding Aid, and I really like that you brought up the point about the limitations of looking at documentation from only two internment camps. I didn’t consider that possible contrasting cultures and narratives can be found in other places. In previous literature and data visualizations that we’ve examined in class, geographic data played significant roles in the interpretation of narratives, and piecing together a more complete spatial picture of the holistic Japanese American Internment would definitely be something that would add great insight to this narrative.
As someone who did not do their blog post on this finding aid, I think that you did a very good job introducing the subject matter and what you can find in this collection. Your breakdown of the collection helped the viewer understand what is present in the collection and how extensive it is. I believe the best part of this blog post is the last paragraph where you put forth your own opinion of how this finding aid could be improved. Overall, very good job!
It was interesting how you broke down not only the finding aid, but also the container list. You went into detail about each series and clearly pointed out the narratives, which I thought made your blog very comprehensive and easy to follow. I also enjoyed reading your comments. I completely agree with what you said about the collection being organized alphabetically. I think this makes it difficult for viewers to navigate through the collection and fully understand the narratives.
I enjoyed how you managed to thoroughly explain the complexity of this finding aid– i.e. the mixing of ‘official’ external perspectives with more personal narratives. It was also helpful how you noted the pitfall of alphabetic order, and how this format is hardly conducive to comprehending historic timelines and changing paradigms.