-
References
- Temple University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
178 Notes to Chapter 2 10. see, for example, hybrid identities as theorized by Homi Bhabha (1994) and stuart Hall (1990) and borderland identities as described by Gloria Anzaldúa (1987). 11. the invitation from Doi can be found in reel 1, Frame 0110. Collins’s response is also in reel 1 and occupies Frames 0110 and 0111. Doi’s letter to Collins is dated september 16, 1967; Collins’s response to Doi is dated October 20, 1967. 12. see “transnational Homepages” in srikanth 2004, 49–97. 13. to Collins, the u.s. citizenship of a person born in the united states is unassailable ; one does not even have to speak english to be an American citizen, he observes. in a brief filed with the American consul in Kobe, Japan, on October 3, 1958, in behalf of Kiyoshi matsuura’s application to reinstate his u.s. citizenship, Collins writes, “there is no legal requirement that a native-born citizen must possess a knowledge of the english language. the fact that the appellant’s knowledge of english may be somewhat rudimentary is to be attributed to adversity and lack of opportunity to learn it. . . . A great many Americans are illiterate in so far as the english language is concerned. . . . (Only aliens seeking to be naturalized, upon whom our naturalization laws operate, are required to learn a smattering of english in order to become recipients of what actually is nothing more than a ‘conditional’ citizenship through the naturalization process. no such legal requirement is imposed on the native born. We appear to have the right to be born, to grow up and to die ignorant of our mother tongue english which, itself, is a foreign importation. perhaps we should all be versed in one or more indian tongue . . .).” Wayne Collins Collection, reel 20, Frames 92–96. 14. letter to Doi, October 20, 1967. 15. Wayne Collins Collection, reel 1, Frame 0111. 16. Digital Densho Archive; interview with tex nakamura. Densho iD: denshovhntetsujiro -01-0013. Available at http://archive.densho.org/main.aspx. interview segment thirteen of twenty-four. 17. the Amistad was a spanish ship that set sail in 1839 from Havana in Cuba to puerto principe, also in Cuba. On board the Amistad were fifty-three Africans and three white men (including the captain) who were spanish subjects. there were also documents that claimed that the Africans were slaves and the rightful property of two of the white men, ruiz and montez. in fact, the Africans, who were from the mendi tribe, had been “kidnapped ” from their West African home by spanish slave traders and transported to Cuba, in violation of spanish laws prohibiting the slave trade. On the journey between Havana and puerto principe, the Africans revolted, killed the captain, and demanded that ruiz and montez navigate the ship to Africa. ruiz and montez tricked the Africans and steered the ship toward the united states, where it ran aground on long island. ruiz and montez were assisted by thomas Gedney and richard meade, the officers of the ship Washington, to regain control of the Amistad. the ship was brought to new london, Connecticut, where the Africans and the ship were held as “salvage.” ruiz and montez claimed that the ship was spanish property and the Africans their private property as slaves, based on the documents from Cuba. Gedney and meade demanded a share of the assets of salvage. the u.s. government (under the presidency of van Buren) argued that the ship and its cargo (including theAfricans, who were considered property) should be returned to spain according to treaty obligations. the Africans argued that they were free men, that the slave trade was illegal in the united states, and that therefore they should be returned to their home in Africa. 18. Wayne Collins Collection, reel 5, Frames 0042–0051. 19. Wayne Collins Collection, reel 1, Frames 0079–0080. 20. see irons 2006. mitsuye endo filed a habeas corpus suit, challenging the legality of her detention and asserting that as a citizen whose loyalty had been established, Notes to Chapter 3 179 the government had no right to detain her. the supreme Court ruled in her favor in December 1944, setting in motion the government’s proclamation that it would be dismantling the camps and releasing the internees back into the communities from which they had been evacuated (360). 21. Wayne Collins Collection, reel 1, Frame 0062. 22. Wayne Collins Collection, reel 5, Frame 0045. 23. Wayne Collins Collection. 24. see...