Harry Kawamoto, a Nisei from San Diego drafted into the U.S. Army in February 1942, testified before the Commission about the contradictions and injustices he and other Japanese American soldiers faced during WWII. Although he did not experience incarceration himself, his testimony revealed how racism and mistrust followed Nisei even into military service.

• Drafted Before Removal: Entered the Army just before mass evacuation began. While in training at Camp Robinson, Arkansas, requested furlough to visit his parents in Poston, Arizona, but was denied because “no persons of Japanese ancestry were allowed in that area.”

• Denied Emergency Furlough: Recalled fellow Nisei soldier Albert Ito, whose brother was killed in the so-called “Manzanar riot.” Ito was refused permission to attend the funeral, with the same excuse given.

• Roosevelt at Fort Riley: When President Roosevelt visited Fort Riley in 1943, Nisei soldiers were locked inside barracks under armed guard — while another group of Nisei, overlooked by officers, wandered freely outside. Kawamoto called this “a ridiculous security measure” that showed the government did not trust its own Japanese American servicemen.

• Segregated & Distrusted: Nisei were often assigned to noncombatant units, further proof of government suspicion. Kawamoto argued that once drafted, Nisei should have been treated with full fairness and respect.

• On Injustice: Declared that denying a soldier the right to attend his brother’s funeral could “never be justified.”

• Redress & Reparations: Insisted no apology could erase such wrongs, and called on the Commission to recommend reparations “in the greatest degree possible.” Pointed out that Congress already had evidence after WWII to justify payments, yet ignored it.

• Closing Plea: Affirmed that every person of Japanese ancestry — and others affected — suffered financial and psychological losses and deserved compensation, endorsing the proposals of the National Coalition for Redress and Reparations.

Akira Horiuchi, a 54-year-old Nisei from Los Angeles, testified before the Commission about his family’s decision to leave voluntarily rather than face forced incarceration, and the devastating personal tragedies that followed.

• Father Arrested: On December 7, 1941, the FBI picked up his father while visiting friends on Terminal Island and held him for several days. That fear shaped the family’s decision to “voluntarily” leave Los Angeles.

• Racism at School: As a teenager, he endured stares, insults, and hostility on public transportation, eventually biking to school to avoid harassment.

• Utah Hardship: The family relocated to rural Utah as sharecroppers. For three years they lived under primitive, degrading conditions — no running water, no electricity, sleeping on bug-infested floors, laboring in fields and canneries. He described the work as “slave labor.”

• Family Tragedies: His baby sister died after falling into an outhouse while everyone worked in the fields. Soon after, his mother died giving birth in a hospital for the first time in her life. Akira was still in high school.

• Military Service: Drafted immediately after graduation, he served in the U.S. Army as an interpreter in the Occupation of Japan. He described the bitter irony of being pulled from “slave labor” only to be ordered to serve the same government that had uprooted his family.

• Lingering Anguish: Questioned how any monetary value could be placed on the loss of his mother and sister, or the fear and humiliation that still haunted him.

• Demand for Redress: Called for meaningful restitution from the U.S. government — at least $25,000 per individual — as the minimum recognition of the injustice.

Masaaki Hironaka, a WWII veteran and longtime postal worker, testified before the Commission about the injustice of being denied reinstatement to his job after military service, and the need for redress both in compensation and in constitutional principle.

• Postwar Employment Struggle: After his 1946 discharge, returned to Chicago within the required 90 days and reapplied for his former postal clerk job. Postmaster Stewart refused to reinstate him. Appeals through the Union, Selective Service, and veterans’ groups failed.

• Return to Fishing & Reentry: Worked in commercial fishing for a year, then retook the postal clerk exam. Only after Stewart’s retirement was he reappointed under a new postmaster.

• Partial Restoration: The Post Office restored only his seniority and time worked — not his full status. Even when Congress passed legislation in the 1950s to reinstate Nisei veterans, he was already in the top grade and received no benefit.

• Career & Retirement: Served 33 years with the Postal Service, retiring in 1975 as Manager of a Classified Station.

• Redress Demand: Called for monetary compensation of no less than $25,000 per person, with funds for deceased incarcerees to go into community programs supporting families and heirs.

• Constitutional Question: Urged the Commission to resolve the precedent of Korematsu, Hirabayashi, and Yasui, to ensure no government can ever again strip citizens of rights based on race.

After hearing testimony from Dr. Matsuo and other panelists, members of the Commission offered reflections on the process and their role. Their comments balanced empathy with reminders of the Commission’s limits.

• Judge Marutani: Thanked panelists, admitted he could not disagree with their goals, but reminded them the Commission must deliver its final report by July of next year. Warned that “he who chases two rabbits catches neither” — urging focus on what can be achieved.

• Dr. Flemming: Emphasized the importance of both individual and organizational testimony, noting that each story is unique and invaluable. Called incarceration a “flagrant violation of civil rights” and reassured witnesses that even seemingly repetitive testimony adds depth to the record. Urged people not to read too much into commissioners’ questions, which are sometimes meant to surface helpful evidence rather than signal conclusions.

• Mr. Mitchell: Clarified that Justice Goldberg’s earlier remarks should not be misinterpreted as official positions. Stressed that commissioners share many of the community’s goals but must work within time and scope.

• Chairman Lungren: Thanked the panel, noted Congresswoman Bobbi Fiedler’s written support for the Commission’s work, and announced a short recess before Judge Marutani would resume as chair.

Together, these remarks underscored both the constraints and the commitment of the Commission — balancing the urgency of testimony with the practicalities of producing findings and recommendations.

Beth Shironaka, speaking as part of the San Diego Redress Reparations Committee, testified before the Commission alongside fellow members Masato Sato, Masaki Nurunaka, and Janet Takomura. Representing a diverse coalition of Issei, Nisei, Sansei, Yonsei, and allies, their statement focused on community dispersal, the generational impacts of camp, and specific remedies for justice.

• San Diego Japantown Lost: Before WWII, San Diego’s Japanese community thrived with restaurants, groceries, hotels, barbershops, churches, and recreation halls clustered in Japantown. Forced removal destroyed this neighborhood; today only one lone grocery store remains. Without that hub, cultural and political life fractured.

• Generational Impacts: Testimony stressed how incarceration disrupted transmission of language, culture, and history. Most Sansei and Yonsei grew up unable to speak Japanese or communicate with grandparents, disconnected from songs, dances, and traditions. Identity confusion left youth vulnerable in the 1960s–70s, with many turning to drugs or struggling with alienation.

• Psychological Toll: They described feeling “not American and not Japanese,” denied roots by laws, racism, relocation, internment, redevelopment, and forced self-denial.

• Remedies Demanded:

  
  

  1. $25,000 per survivor, with heirs to receive funds for deceased, and an emergency fund for Issei.

  2. Separate community fund for cultural, social, educational, and religious needs.

  3. Legislation explicitly prohibiting future mass incarceration of any people.

  4. Educational outreach — ensuring the true history of incarceration is taught in textbooks and schools.

  
  

• Closing Vision: Rebuilding community centers would restore pride, preserve heritage, and strengthen the fight for equality and justice across generations.

Sue Kunitomi Embrey, co-founder of the Manzanar Committee and lifelong educator, testified before the Commission about her own incarceration at Manzanar and her decades of activism to preserve memory and demand redress. Her testimony traced her journey from a teenage internee to the leader of pilgrimages that transformed silence into action.

• Family Removal: Born and raised in Los Angeles, she was sent to Manzanar on May 9, 1942, with her widowed mother and six siblings. One brother volunteered for the Army from camp; three others later served in the U.S. military, including one killed in Korea.

• Life in Camp: Worked making camouflage nets and became managing editor of the Manzanar Free Press. She described incarceration as “the most traumatic experience of my life.”

• Breaking Silence: In 1969, helped organize the first Manzanar Pilgrimage with Asian American student activists. The event sparked requests for information and began to break the community’s silence.

• Manzanar Committee: Formed to educate the public and secure recognition of the camps. Successfully pushed for Manzanar’s designation as a California Historical Landmark in 1972, despite resistance to using the words “concentration camp” and “injustice” on the plaque.

• Pilgrimages & Exhibits: Annual pilgrimages and exhibits like Executive Order 9066 (Dorothea Lange photographs) and Months of Waiting (artworks) created spaces for community reflection, especially for Sansei who had grown up with little knowledge of camp.

• Facing Resistance: Recalled painful moments, like Nisei elders walking out of a 1973 screening of Bob Nakamura’s film Manzanar, unwilling to confront memories.

• Census Deception: Exposed how WWII census confidentiality was suspended, contradicting the Census Bureau’s claims and leaving her embarrassed as a government community specialist.

• Vision of Justice: Declared that resettlement was never truly over, and that redress must go beyond apology. Reparations must be direct and monetary for the loss of civil rights, psychological damage, and destruction of community.

June Kizu, representing the Southern California chapter of the National Coalition for Redress and Reparations (NCRR), delivered one of the most forceful organizational testimonies before the Commission. Speaking as part of a grassroots coalition formed in 1980, she called for justice rooted in history, law, and community experience.

• Origins of NCRR: Began in Los Angeles when community groups joined forces; has since expanded nationwide with members from New England to Hawai‘i.

• Historical Record: Cited testimony of constitutional violations, government abuse of power, racism, economic greed, and media manipulation. Asked directly: how will the government measure the scope of evacuation and legislate to remedy it?

• Demands Beyond Property: Losses were not just financial but psychological, cultural, and social — “three years of people’s lives” stolen.

• Concrete Proposals:

  
  

  • Ongoing public education so future generations understand and prevent similar injustice.

  • Overturning the legal basis for EO 9066 to ensure no branch of government can strip away rights again.

  • Including other communities harmed by wartime policies (Aleutians, Latin Americans of Japanese descent, and others).

  • Creation of a community fund for social damage.

  • Direct individual monetary compensation to each incarceree or heir, with $25,000 as a minimum starting point.

  
  

• Survey Evidence: Referenced a 1981 survey of 3,700 Japanese Americans — 95% supported redress, nearly 90% supported direct payment.

• Rejecting Excuses: Countered arguments against reparations, including claims that Japanese Americans had “made it anyway” or that heirs did not deserve compensation. Stressed that most heirs were Nisei still living with trauma and losses.

• Principle of Justice: Declared monetary reparations the most principled and expeditious path, reaffirming citizenship and the rule of law.

• Commission’s Duty: Criticized logistical failures in the hearings and demanded commissioners return to communities in person to explain their recommendations.

• Final Plea: Urged commissioners to act with moral courage and not compromise justice: “Any compromise recommendation will be a compromise of justice.”

Dave Toru Matsuo, representing Agape Fellowship and Asian American Journey, testified before the Commission with both gratitude and frustration. While thankful for the hearings, he challenged commissioners to go beyond data collection and confront the state’s moral guilt for incarceration.

• Mixed Feelings: Expressed disappointment that more commissioners were absent in Los Angeles but appreciation for efforts to hold community sessions in Little Tokyo.

• Purpose of the Commission: Questioned Justice Goldberg’s suggestion that the Commission’s role was limited to calculating reparations, arguing instead that its work must indict the state itself.

• What’s Unsaid: Emphasized that many Japanese Americans remain silent out of fear, shame, or trauma. Urged commissioners to consider not only the testimonies presented, but also the absences — the voices unheard.

• State Accountability: Insisted the issue was not just whether mistakes were made, but whether the state itself was wrong in enacting Executive Order 9066. Called it a “criminal action” requiring restitution.

• Beyond Apology: Declared an apology alone was inadequate. Reparations were necessary as both corrective and preventative measures, ensuring such injustices could not be repeated.

• For Heirs Too: Pointed out the generational trauma passed to children and grandchildren. Said heirs must be included in reparations, since families were fragmented and disintegrated by incarceration.

• Moral & Compassionate Duty: Compared this Commission’s opportunity to the Kerner Commission, but with the chance to do more — not just identify racism, but mandate restitution. Called for courage and compassion in indicting the state and affirming justice.

Ewan Yoshida, born in Alaska in 1930, testified before the Commission with a deeply personal story of family separation and lifelong loss. His testimony centered on the disappearance of his father after Pearl Harbor and the decades of unanswered questions that followed.

• Early Life in Alaska: Raised on Kodiak Island, the only Japanese American family there. His father was a commercial fisherman who built a new home and cared for his three sons after their mother’s early death.

• Promise of Family: Remembered his father’s words — that one day he would take his boys out of the orphanage so they could live with him and fish together.

• Pearl Harbor & Arrest: On December 7, 1941, his father and two uncles were arrested and sent to U.S. concentration camps. The family was never told where. Their house, boat, and fishing equipment were all lost.

• Vanished Father: At just 11 years old, Yoshida never saw his father again. For 40 years he tried to trace what happened, finding only fragments that his father may have worked in agriculture in Idaho or Utah.

• Bitter Legacy: Testified that the U.S. government “made me an orphan.” The loss left him angry, depressed, and permanently embittered.

• Longing & Faith: Despite the bitterness, he held onto hope: if by God’s will he might find his father alive, the tears of joy would wash away decades of pain. For now, all he could do was “hope and pray.”

• Commission Response: Commissioners asked for details of his father’s name and age, promising staff would search the records to assist in locating him.

Mitsuru Sasahara, a Sansei from Los Angeles, testified before the Commission about his family’s journey from prewar community life, to incarceration at Manzanar, to postwar struggles in Los Angeles. His testimony wove together personal memory, family loss, and his call for reparations.

• Family Background: Born in 1934, third generation. His father, born in Honolulu in 1900, built a life in California as a gardener after being displaced from farm work in Orange County. His mother was born in Los Angeles County in 1908.

• Neighborhood Before the War: Grew up in Atwater and Glendale, in a mixed Anglo and Hispanic neighborhood with only a handful of Japanese families. Recalled a childhood of shared lunches—tortillas, beans, Campbell’s soup, and rice balls—an “international palate.”

• Pearl Harbor & Shock: Parents were stunned by news of the attack; neighbors remained friendly. Children went to school without harassment, and the family planted a “victory garden” to show their loyalty.

• Evacuation: On April 26, 1942, the family was forced onto buses with only what they could carry. Mitsuru gave his prized cap gun to his best friend before leaving.

• Camp at Manzanar: Lived in a one-mile-square desert compound ringed by barbed wire and guard towers. As a child, he recalled endless boredom, no real schooling for a year, and wandering aimlessly around camp. He described the conditions as “a hellhole” — rejecting the euphemism “relocation center.”

• Family Division: His father considered leaving for Japan out of disillusionment, but his mother refused: “If you leave, you go alone.” They stayed together. After camp, the family briefly lived in a Fresno tool shed before moving back to Los Angeles in 1946.

• Postwar Hardship: In Los Angeles, they endured cramped kitchenette apartments, communal bathrooms, and years of instability before his father could resume gardening. His father died in 1952, “a broken man,” which Mitsuru believed was tied to the trauma of incarceration.

• Call for Reparations: Urged compensation for both individuals and destroyed communities — a means of justice for families who returned home to find their neighborhoods and centers gone.