preview

Japanese American Oppressor Analysis

Better Essays

It is easy for someone to say that they will be noblest person when they are suppressed by authority, but the smallness of people’s heroic intentions are only realized in moments of conflict. Sometimes, saving oneself is more worthwhile than defeating the enemy, and this compliance is the strength to maintain mental resilience against a physically stronger oppressor. The relationship between the aggressor and the repressed is a semblance of inequality in power, but humans are not infallible superheroes, and silence and command are both means of power. The Japanese-Americans in World War II faced harsh discrimination from the government and the other conformist American people. Although they were rounded up and contained like zoo animals, they …show more content…

These devices emulate a spoken conversation where tone is physically displayed, but instead these devices convey conversational aspects. For instance, the father finally reveals the FBI interrogation after a period where he withdrew himself from the family. The suddenness of his desire to talk and reveal his secrets is refreshing and sarcastic. Through his entire monologue he confirms his identity and he has too many occupations for one person. He says, “I’m your florist. I’m your grocer. I’m your porter. I’m your waiter. I’m the owner of the dry-goods store on the corner of Elm” (142). The repetition of “I’ emphasizes a singularity. The humorous aspect is his mockery of the soldiers’ ignorance of recognizing the individuality within the Japanese-American community. Despite the superficial uniformity of Japanese Americans, they are not all indistinct. He further mocks the absurdity of his arrest, and on a greater level the the containment of the entire Japanese American community. His disdain is loud through the text as he continues his rant, “I pulled out the nails from your white picket fence and sold them to the enemy to melt down and make it into bullets” (141). He uses sarcastic rhetoric to criminalize his own actions to contrast with the severity. These are not crimes, and it is useless information. Instead of explicitly saying that he combines the idea of crimes and his crimes to show that his crimes are simply not. The use of ridiculousness plays a serious role as showing the unjustness of the arrest. As if the father could be any more mocking of his arrest, he abruptly concludes his speech, “There. That’s it. I’ve said it. Now can I go?” (144). The rhetorical is out of context. The chopped phrasing sounds childish. He does not take the interrogation seriously. The father mocks the illegitimacy of his arrest,

Get Access