Sophie Chase 5 Pages and Paper Outline

History 209S "5 Pages" Assignment 

Sophie Chase 

“Between the barracks,” recalled Japanese-American and former Jerome internee, Sada Murayana, “there was a trellis with morning glories, forming a tunnel of flowers. One block in particular was a showplace. Any outside visitors were taken there.” Perhaps an unremarkable scene to the busy passerby today, that these small purple and pink flowers not only captured Murayana’s attention, but also were captivating enough to warrant a visit from “outside visitors,” is compelling. Upon further consideration however, perhaps that Murayana and other internees were enchanted with small flowers freely blossoming within the bared wire confines of a World War Two U.S. Japanese American internment camp is not so surprising.

For the over 120,000 Japanese Americans that the U.S. government forcibly relocated and replanted in harsh, desolate and unfamiliar locations across the United States following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, an otherwise insignificant flower, humble tomato plant or indistinguishable patch of grass on the outside would have quite possibly meant something much more on the inside. During a period in American history in which the garden, as historian Cecilia Gowdy-Wygant has shown, became synonymous with victory, patriotism and American identity, it is not so farfetched to consider the garden as transcending its own conventional “purpose,” whatever that may be, to then say something more about Japanese American experience, responses to confinement and identity. Perhaps then that Japanese American internees planted morning glories among barracks, cultivated communal “victory gardens,” in line with U.S. government sponsored “food for victory” movements and arranged stones, water and wood to form Japanese Shima all under the watchful eyes of the U.S. government and War Relocation Authority (WRA) officials is neither as paradoxical nor as surprising as it may seem from the outside of the barbed wire.

That the garden can be understood as a site of creative coping, resistance and identity making within a confined space is not a new concept. Through a rich collection of historical works on the experiences of confined persons in a variety of spaces from POW camps to Jewish ghettos, editors Gilly Carr and Harold Mytum showcase how prisoners, internees and captured persons creatively engaged with the “materiality of their lives” to combat boredom, cope with horrible conditions and even resist authority. In the particular case of Japanese American internment, no historian has shed light on internees use of the garden as form of creative coping and “place-making” better than Iowa State Professor Jane E. Dusselier. Often forcibly relocated to hostile and unfamiliar spaces multiple times, Japanese American internes looked to the land to engage in what Dusselier coins, “re-terriorialization.” By altering barren and dusty “spaces” into “places” marked by flowers, vegetable and rock gardens, Japanese American internees made “space” that was not their own, legally, into safe “places” they could not only identity with, but could also up-root and take with them during the relocation process.

Although Dusselier’s argument for gardens role in “portable place-making” in Japanese American internment camps is altogether conclusive, she only discusses gardens as possible sites of identity-making and subversive resistance in Japanese Americans internment camps briefly. Moreover, as historian Jere Takahashi correctly points out, Japanese-Americans were without a single national and cultural identity during WWII due to generational differences between the Issei (1^st generation) and Nisei (2^nd generation). This led to considerable tensions within the group. Dusselier, however, fails to make any distinction between Issei and Nisei use of garden spaces, thus generalizing the experience across generations. Finally, the flower, vegetable and rock gardens of Japanese American internment camps at times complemented and at other times stood in stark contrast to the popular “victory garden” image the U.S. Government projected to the American public through pamphlets, posters and magazines. That Japanese Americans, at least to a certain extent, appeared to buy into the idea of the “victory garden,” and what all it stood for seems paradoxical considering this image was conflated by the very government that unfairly condemned them.

A creative space that has long captured the imagination of United States and its individuals, the garden, particularly the “victory,” garden, demands closer examination. How was the “victory garden,” represented in U.S. government sponsored pamphlets, posters and magazine ads? What did U.S. government officials hope to accomplish with these representations? To what extent did “victory garden” movements seek to include minority groups, like Japanese Americans, and to what extent did they seek to exclude? What kinds of gardens developed in Japanese American internment camps and what roles did the “garden” play? What differences existed between Issei and Nisei use of the “garden?” To what extent did these gardens model or deviate from the U.S. government’s ideal “victory garden?” What did this say about Japanese-American goals, identity and experience in internment camps? What did Japanese Americans hope to accomplish by creating gardens in confined space? How useful is the “garden,” as a source when considering oppressed or confined people’s goals, identities or experiences?

Gardens took on considerable meaning on the American home front during WWII at the national, group and individual level. For Japanese Americans, visually excluded in U.S. government sponsored representations of the white, “virtuous” gardener and his “victory garden,” the “victory garden” took on a very different meaning and purpose. Behind the barbed wire of internment camps, “victory gardens,” were certainly productive spaces purposed for supplementing diet and even making up for a lack of food in some cases, but even more so they were spaces through which Japanese Americans could respond to WRA and U.S. government authority and negotiated seemingly contradictory identities of “American-ness,” and “Japanese-ness,” on a generational basis. By partaking in “victory gardening” and “garden-making” – efforts that were highly encouraged by the U.S. government and WRA officials in the name of an American “victory” – Japanese Americans could subversively attach new meaning and purposes to the “victory garden,” while avoiding detection. In a confined and regulated space, where Japanese American’s loyalty was in question, outgoing and incoming correspondence was intercepted and barracks searched for contraband, the “victory garden” would have been one space where negotiations between resisting, accommodating, aligning oneself with an “American-identity” would have gone uncensored. 

 This paper, through a thoughtful consideration of the “victory garden” and its meanings and purposes in U.S., ultimately seeks to understand how Japanese Americans as a whole, generationally and individually navigated internment camps and negotiated their newly coined identities as Japanese American “enemies to the nation.” In part one, I examine the ideal “victory garden,” and “victory-gardener” through an analysis of U.S. government representations of gardening, race and victory in pamphlets, posters and magazine ads widely distributed in the U.S beginning in 1942. In this section I also address the question of who is missing from these representations, with my focus in this paper being on Japanese Americans, and what implications this had for the victory garden movement as a whole. Relying on Japanese American produced camp newspapers, correspondence, diaries, high school yearbooks and memoirs as my primary evidence in part 2, I first detail the types of gardens that Japanese Americans created in internment camps, how they created them, where they cropped up and how their creators used them, at least conventionally. In this section I also investigate the extent to which the outward character of Japanese “victory gardens,” and their “victory gardener” either modeled or deviated from the ideal “victory garden” and the ideal gardener discussed in part 1.

Continuing to use a range of Japanese American voices as my evidence, I then enter the heart of my paper in part 3 in which I fully grapple with Japanese American internment gardens as sites in which Japanese Americans negotiated dual identities and could respond, often subversively, to U.S. government authority. I continue with this discussion in part 4, but with a focus on the Issei’s differing use of Japanese internment gardens. Instead of negotiating dual identities, Issei used internment gardens to retain Japanese cultural identities and traditional family hierarchies they saw rapidly disintegrate in internment camps. Finally, I conclude with an examination of the “garden,” and other “unconventional” sources and their usefulness in understanding oppressed or confined peoples experiences in spaces where words often were not or could not be fully expressed.

History 209S Paper Outline

Sophie Chase

          I.     Introduction/Background

a.     Research Questions: How was the “victory garden,” represented in U.S. government sponsored pamphlets, posters and magazine ads? What did U.S. government officials hope to accomplish with these representations? To what extent did “victory garden” movements seek to include minority groups, like Japanese Americans, and to what extent did they seek to exclude? What kinds of gardens developed in Japanese American internment camps and what roles did the “garden” play? What differences existed between Issei and Nisei use of the “garden?” To what extent did these gardens model or deviate from the U.S. government’s ideal “victory garden?” What did this say about Japanese-American goals, identity and experience in internment camps? What did Japanese Americans hope to accomplish by creating gardens in confined space? How useful is the “garden,” as a source when considering oppressed or confined people’s goals, identities or experiences?

b.     Thesis/Major Claims: Gardens took on considerable meaning on the American home front during WWII at the national, group and individual level. For Japanese Americans, visually excluded in U.S. government sponsored representations of the white, “virtuous” gardener and his or her “victory garden,” the “victory garden” took on a very different meaning and purpose. Behind the barbed wire of internment camps, “victory gardens,” were, conventionally, productive spaces purposed for supplementing diet and even making up for a lack of food. Even more so though, they were spaces through which Japanese Americans could respond to WRA and U.S. government authority and negotiated seemingly contradictory identities of “American-ness,” and “Japanese-ness,” on a generational basis. By partaking in “victory gardening” and “garden-making” – efforts that were highly encouraged by the U.S. government and WRA officials in the name of American “victory” – Japanese Americans could subversively attach new meaning and purposes to the “victory garden,” while avoiding detection. In a confined and regulated space, where Japanese American’s loyalty was in question, outgoing and incoming correspondence was intercepted and barracks searched for contraband, the “victory garden” would have been one space where negotiations between resisting or aligning oneself with an “American-identity” would have gone uncensored. 

        II.     Part 1: “Cultivating the Seeds of Victory!” Visual Representations of Gardening, Race and Virtues in the U.S. WWII “Victory Garden” movements

a.     Claim 1: Reminiscent of Thomas Jefferson’s virtuous “yeoman” farmer, through visual representations of the “victory gardens” and “victory gardeners,” the U.S. government projected “virtuousness” onto gardening during WWII to boost morale and productivity and create a sense of stability and unity.

                                              i.     Secondary Source: “Chapter 5: Victory Gardening and Canning: Men, Women and Home front Food Production”

                                            ii.     Secondary Source: “Vegetable Garden Victorious”  

b.     Claim 2: The white woman, often imagined as a motherly figure in propaganda, became the face of the victory garden movement during WWII. To the U.S. government no one on the home front represented idealized American virtues and projected a sense of stability better than her.

                                               i.     “Will you have a part in Victory?” Poster (1943)

                                             ii.     “War Gardens for Victory: Grow Vitamins at your kitchen door” Poster (1943)

                                            iii.     “To Speed Our Boys Home” Poster (US 3148), 1943

                                            iv.     “Sow the seeds of Victory! Plant and raise your own vegetables”

                                             v.     “Liberty sowing the seeds of victory: write for free books to National War Garden Commission”

                                            vi.     “We’ll have lots to eat this winter, won’t we Mother?”

                                          vii.     Secondary Source: “Woman as Wartime Homemaker”

                                         viii.     Secondary Source: “Chapter 2: This is Worth fighting For” Motivational Ads

c.     Claim 3: In the few times minorities were not completely absent from victory garden propaganda, they took on subservient roles in relation to the white, virtuous victory gardener. This was because, at least in the eyes of U.S. government officials, they could never be full partakers in “victory,” nevertheless represent virtue, stability and unity the U.S. government hoped to project.  

                                              i.     Secondary Source: “Chapter: Islands of Serenity” in Eating for Victory (61, 78-80), “Chapter: Victory Gardening and Canning” in Eating for Victory (120)

                                            ii.     Secondary Source: Chapter 2: Woman as Homemaker: Family, Food and National Security in Eating for Victory

d.     Claim 4: Despite making up a large majority of the farming population prior to WWII, it is no wonder why Japanese Americans were excluded from victory garden propaganda. Often represented as kidnapping, killing or raping white woman in U.S. WWII propaganda, the “Jap” was the epitome of evil and immorality and the arch-nemesis to what the white woman and the “victory garden”

      movement stood for.

                                              I.     “Keep this horror from your home”

                                            II.     “This is the enemy”

                                          III.     Secondary Source: “Vegetable Garden Victorious”

      III.     Part 2: Of Productivity and Pleasure: Distinct Japanese American “Victory Gardens” during Internment

a.     Claim 1: Despite being visually excluded from “victory garden” movements, Japanese Americans planted and cultivated extensive individual and communal internment gardens. These were productive spaces that added fresh vegetables and fruits to a limited camp food supply.

                                              i.     “The Kitchen” section of “Topaz Times,” June 27^th, 1942

                                            ii.     Nakei Havey Memoir (175-176, 177)

                                          iii.     Yoshiko Uchida Memoir (71, 76-77)

                                            iv.     Yoshiko Uchida Memoir (92, 111)

                                              v.     The Kikuchi Diary (109, 135, 201 & 203)

                                            vi.     Lily Yuriko Nakai Havey (175-176)

                                          vii.     Letters to Miss Breed, January 6^th, 1942, September 27^th, 1942

b.     Claim 2: Japanese Americans also put their own spin on internment gardens transforming them into pleasurable spaces by growing flowers alongside vegetables and incorporating elements of traditional Shima garden making. 

                                              i.     The Kikuchi Diary (132-133)

                                            ii.     Yoshiko Uchida Memoir (87)

                                          iii.     The Kikuchi Diary (203)

                                            iv.     Mary Matsuda Grunewald Memoir (49, 138, 157)

                                              v.     Lily Yuriko Nakai Havey (157)

                                            vi.     Letters to Miss Breed, January 6^th, 1942

                                          vii.     Toyojiro Suzuki Diary, August 20^th-25^th, 1942

                                        viii.     Secondary Source: Japanese Garden for the Mind

c.     Claim 3: Although Japanese American’s internment gardens were often outwardly distinct from “victory gardens” modeled through propaganda, they were made similar enough that they did not arouse authority suspicions.

                                              i.     “Topaz Times,” April 1^st, 1943

                                            ii.     “Topaz Times,” July 13^th, 1943

                                            iii.     May 30^th, 1942, “Topaz Times,” “Pebbles of Patriotism,” George Yano of 129-3 has “Victory” spelled out in pebbles in the garden in front of his house. Very Commendable, we say.

                                            iv.     Yoshiko Uchida Memoir (94)

                                             v.     “Topaz Times,” July 13^th, 1943

                                            vi.     “Topaz Times,” October 12^th 1943

      IV.     Part 3: Nisei Negotiations: Internment Gardens as Subversive Strategies

a.     Claim 1: That Japanese American internment gardens were made just similar enough to not arouse authority suspicions rendered them “safe havens,” where the could freely negotiate seemingly contradictory duel identities of American-ness and Japanese-ness in contrast to other regulated internment spaces, like correspondence and barracks.

                                               i.     Yoshiko Uchida Memoir (81)

                                            ii.     The Kikuchi Diary (146)

                                          iii.     Mary Matsuda Grunewald Memoir (47)

                                            iv.     Toyojiro Suzuki Diary, April 21^st, 1942

b.     Claim 2: Japanese American internment gardens reflected Nisei struggles with national and cultural identity in that Nisei were neither fully “American” nor fully “Japanese.” This really only becomes evident however, when internment gardens are considered as having the ability to transcend their conventional “purposes” in internment camps.

                                              i.     The Kikuchi Diary (55, 133)

                                            ii.     “Topaz Times,” June 24^th, 1943

                                          iii.     “Topaz Times,” August 1^st, 1942

                                            iv.     “The Kitchen” section of “Topaz Times, June 27^th, 1942

c.     Claim 3: Internment gardens ultimately say something about which national and cultural “identity,” Japanese Americans rejected or aligned themselves with, This is something that in a confined and regulated space would have been difficult to express otherwise.

                                              i.     “Topaz Times,” August 1^st, 1942

                                            ii.     Letters to Miss Breed, January 6^th, 1942

                                          iii.     Photos

d.     Claim 4: Japanese American internment gardens, like other sources and research, tell a story of Japanese American ambivalence in response to confinement. However internment gardens, specifically, show this was not in act of pacifism as it has consistently been misconstrued, but rather a subversive strategy to maintain the upper hand.

                                              i.     Mary Matsuda Grunewald Memoir (72)

                                            ii.     Secondary Source: Artifacts of Loss

        V.     Part 4:

a.     Claim 1: It is overly simplistic to maintain that the internment experience was the same for all Japanese Americans. In actuality, major differences in age and identity split Japanese Americans down the middle and contributed to considerable tensions between Nisei and Issei. Internment gardens reveal these tensions particularly well.

                                              i.     The Kikuchi Diary (89)

                                             ii.     Yoshiko Uchida Memoir (77)

b.     Claim 2: For the Issei generation, most of whom were still only Japanese citizens, internment gardens were spaces to retain Japanese culture and traditions.

                                              i.     Mary Matsuda Grunewald Memoir (56)

                                            ii.     Yoshiko Uchida Memoir (37, 42, 45)

                                          iii.     The Kikuchi Diary (132-133)

                                            iv.     “The Kitchen” section, June 27^th, 1942 “Topaz Times”

c.     Claim 3: Nisei were not the only Japanese Americans looking to maintain an upper hand. Issei generation Japanese Americans created and used internment gardens to maintain traditional family hierarchies and thus retain the upper hand in family matters, especially as family structure broke down in internment camps.

                                              i.     The Kikuchi Diary (82-83, 140)

                                            ii.     Secondary Source: Nisei/Sansei: Shifting Japanese American Identities and Politics, Chapter 4: Constructive Cooperation

      VI.     Conclusion