D2.His.5.9-12: How Historical Contexts Shape Perspectives

Overview

Lesson Procedure

75-80 minutes of class time across 5 phases.

1. Warm-Up10 minutes
2. Direct Instruction20-25 minutes
3. Guided Practice15 minutes
4. Independent Practice20 minutes
5. Closure10 minutes

1. Warm-Up10 minutes

   Warm-Up Prompt

   "In 1944 a Supreme Court justice wrote that the Court could not judge the government's wartime actions by 'the calm perspective of hindsight.' What is hindsight? Is it fair to judge people of the past using what we know now? What would you need to know about their situation first?"

   Students write for three minutes, then share in pairs. Collect answers in two columns on the board: What people at the time knew, feared or believed and What later people learned. Point out that both columns describe a context. Hindsight is understanding an event after it has happened, often with evidence the people at the time did not have. Tell students that the quotation comes from Source 2, which they will read today, and that the lesson asks how the context of a time shapes what people in it think, and how later contexts reshape it.

2. Direct Instruction20-25 minutes

   Part 1: Key terms. Post these before reading.

   • Perspective: the way a person or group sees an event, shaped by their experiences, beliefs, interests and position.
   • Historical context: the conditions of a particular time and place in which a person thinks and acts: events, laws, fears, shared beliefs, and the evidence then available.
   • Exclusion: an order that barred people from living in or entering an area. Forced removal and incarceration (confinement without charges or trial) are the terms the National Park Service uses for what followed.
   • Issei were Japanese immigrants, whom federal law barred from citizenship; Nisei were their US-born children, citizens by birth.
   • Redress: setting right a wrong, for example with an official apology and payment (called restitution in Source 6).

   Part 2: The context of 1942. Give the facts first, with their sources, so students can test the claims in the readings.

   Dated facts about the context (from the National Archives introduction to Executive Order 9066, unless another source is named)

   Date	Fact
   1913	A California law restricted land ownership to people eligible to be citizens, which excluded Japanese immigrants
   1922	In Ozawa v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld the denial of US citizenship to Japanese immigrants
   December 7, 1941	Japan attacked Pearl Harbor; the National Archives describes "a rash of fear about national security, especially on the West Coast"
   February 19, 1942	President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 (Source 1)
   March 21, 1942	Congress passed Public Law 503, which made violating the order a crime
   1942	Approximately 122,000 people were forcibly moved, first to "assembly centers," then to 10 camps; nearly 70,000 were American citizens, and the government made no charges against them
   December 18, 1944	The Supreme Court decided Korematsu v. United States (Sources 2 and 3; date from United States Reports, volume 323)

   Part 3: Context and perspective, step by step. Model a three-part statement with Source 1: (a) the context (dated facts), (b) the perspective (quoted words), and (c) the link (how (a) made (b) likely or reasonable to the writer). Then read Sources 2 and 3 aloud. Both justices wrote in December 1944, while the war was still being fought. Ask students to mark in one color what each justice says about the war and in a second color what he says about race or rights.

   1Whereas the successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to national-defense material, national-defense premises, and national-defense utilities as defined in Section 4, Act of April 20, 1918, 40 Stat. 533, as amended by the Act of November 30, 1940, 54 Stat. 1220, and the Act of August 21, 1941, 55 Stat. 655 (U.S.C., Title 50, Sec. 104);

   2Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of War, and the Military Commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion. The Secretary of War is hereby authorized to provide for residents of any such area who are excluded therefrom, such transportation, food, shelter, and other accommodations as may be necessary, in the judgment of the Secretary of War or the said Military Commander, and until other arrangements are made, to accomplish the purpose of this order. The designation of military areas in any region or locality shall supersede designations of prohibited and restricted areas by the Attorney General under the Proclamations of December 7 and 8, 1941, and shall supersede the responsibility and authority of the Attorney General under the said Proclamations in respect of such prohibited and restricted areas.

   3I hereby further authorize and direct the Secretary of War and the said Military Commanders to take such other steps as he or the appropriate Military Commander may deem advisable to enforce compliance with the restrictions applicable to each Military area hereinabove authorized to be designated, including the use of Federal troops and other Federal Agencies, with authority to accept assistance of state and local agencies.

   1The petitioner, an American citizen of Japanese descent, was convicted in a federal district court for remaining in San Leandro, California, a "Military Area," contrary to Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the Commanding General of the Western Command, U. S. Army, which directed that after May 9, 1942, all persons of Japanese ancestry should be excluded from that area. No question was raised as to petitioner's loyalty to the United States. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, and the importance of the constitutional question involved caused us to grant certiorari.

   2It should be noted, to begin with, that all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny. Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can.

   [...]

   3It is said that we are dealing here with the case of imprisonment of a citizen in a concentration camp solely because of his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition towards the United States. Our task would be simple, our duty clear, were this a case involving the imprisonment of a loyal citizen in a concentration camp because of racial prejudice. Regardless of the true nature of the assembly and relocation centers—and we deem it unjustifiable to call them concentration camps with all the ugly connotations that term implies—we are dealing specifically with nothing but an exclusion order. To cast this case into outlines of racial prejudice, without reference to the real military dangers which were presented, merely confuses the issue. Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders—as inevitably it must—determined that they should have the power to do just this. There was evidence of disloyalty on the part of some, the military authorities considered that the need for action was great, and time was short. We cannot—by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight—now say that at that time these actions were unjustified.

   1This exclusion of "all persons of Japanese ancestry, both alien and non-alien," from the Pacific Coast area on a plea of military necessity in the absence of martial law ought not to be approved. Such exclusion goes over "the very brink of constitutional power" and falls into the ugly abyss of racism.

   2In dealing with matters relating to the prosecution and progress of a war, we must accord great respect and consideration to the judgments of the military authorities who are on the scene and who have full knowledge of the military facts. The scope of their discretion must, as a matter of necessity and common sense, be wide. And their judgments ought not to be overruled lightly by those whose training and duties ill-equip them to deal intelligently with matters so vital to the physical security of the nation. At the same time, however, it is essential that there be definite limits to military discretion, especially where martial law has not been declared. Individuals must not be left impoverished of their constitutional rights on a plea of military necessity that has neither substance nor support. Thus, like other claims conflicting with the asserted constitutional rights of the individual, the military claim must subject itself to the judicial process of having its reasonableness determined and its conflicts with other interests reconciled. [...]

   [...]

   3I dissent, therefore, from this legalization of racism. Racial discrimination in any form and in any degree has no justifiable part whatever in our democratic way of life. It is unattractive in any setting but it is utterly revolting among a free people who have embraced the principles set forth in the Constitution of the United States. All residents of this nation are kin in some way by blood or culture to a foreign land. Yet they are primarily and necessarily a part of the new and distinct civilization of the United States. They must accordingly be treated at all times as the heirs of the American experiment and as entitled to all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

   • Context to perspective (Source 1, paragraphs 1-2)

     What reason does Executive Order 9066 give for itself, and how does its wording reflect the context of February 1942?

     Result: The order opens with the claim that "the successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage" (paragraph 1). Signed ten weeks after Pearl Harbor, when the National Archives describes "a rash of fear about national security, especially on the West Coast," the order frames removal as protection in wartime. Its text never names a group: it lets commanders exclude "any or all persons" (paragraph 2). The National Archives notes that the curfews General DeWitt announced under the order included only Japanese Americans, so the general wording does not show how the order was used.

   • Context to perspective (Source 2, paragraph 3)

     How does the wartime context shape Justice Black's view of the case?

     Result: Black lists the context as his reasons: Korematsu was excluded "because we are at war with the Japanese Empire," because the military "feared an invasion of our West Coast," and because "time was short" (paragraph 3). He also says the Court cannot judge "by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight." In his view, the only fair test is the danger as it looked in 1942, so he defers to military judgment.

   • Same context, different perspective (Source 3, paragraphs 1-2)

     Justice Murphy wrote in the same month, about the same order. How does his perspective differ, and what does that show?

     Result: Murphy accepts part of the context: courts "must accord great respect" to the military in war (paragraph 2). But he insists on "definite limits to military discretion" and calls the exclusion a fall "into the ugly abyss of racism" (paragraph 1). The same context produced opposite views, so context explains what both men had to weigh, not which answer each chose. Their beliefs about rights and evidence also mattered.

   • A present-day context (National Park Service, Manzanar National Historic Site home page)

     In 1942 the camp in California's Owens Valley was officially named "Manzanar War Relocation Center." How does the National Park Service describe it today?

     Result: The park's home page says Manzanar "was one of ten camps where the US government incarcerated Japanese immigrants ineligible for citizenship and Japanese American citizens during World War II." The wartime name used "relocation"; the present-day federal description uses "incarcerated." A later context, with decades of research and survivors' testimony, shapes the words a federal agency chooses. That is one way context continues to shape perspectives.

3. Guided Practice15 minutes

   Pairs read Sources 4 and 5 and fill in a context-perspective chart for each: the date, two facts about the context, the perspective in quoted words, and the link. Circulate and ask each pair to point to the words that support each box.

   1. In Source 4, paragraph 1, what event of 1976 does President Ford connect to his proclamation, and how does he use it?
   2. In Source 4, paragraph 4, what does Ford say Americans "now know"? What does the phrase "should have known then" suggest about the 1942 context?
   3. In Source 5, paragraph 1, what three "broad historical causes" does the commission name? How is this a judgment about context?
   4. In Source 5, paragraph 1, the commission says the policy was "conceived in haste and executed in an atmosphere of fear and anger at Japan." Which parts of the context of early 1942 does this phrase point to?

   1In this Bicentennial Year, we are commemorating the anniversary dates of many great events in American history. An honest reckoning, however, must include a recognition of our national mistakes as well as our national achievements. Learning from our mistakes is not pleasant, but as a great philosopher once admonished, we must do so if we want to avoid repeating them.

   2February 19th is the anniversary of a sad day in American history. It was on that date in 1942, in the midst of the response to the hostilities that began on December 7, 1941, that Executive Order 9066 was issued, subsequently enforced by the criminal penalties of a statute enacted March 21, 1942, resulting in the uprooting of loyal Americans. Over one hundred thousand persons of Japanese ancestry were removed from their homes, detained in special camps, and eventually relocated.

   3The tremendous effort by the War Relocation Authority and concerned Americans for the welfare of these Japanese-Americans may add perspective to that story, but it does not erase the setback to fundamental American principles. Fortunately, the Japanese-American community in Hawaii was spared the indignities suffered by those on our mainland.

   4We now know what we should have known then--not only was that evacuation wrong, but Japanese-Americans were and are loyal Americans. On the battlefield and at home, Japanese-Americans -- names like Hamada, Mitsumori, Marimoto, Noguchi, Yamasaki, Kido, Munemori and Miyamura -- have been and continue to be written in our history for the sacrifices and the contributions they have made to the well-being and security of this, our common Nation.

   5The Executive Order that was issued on February 19, 1942, was for the sole purpose of prosecuting the war with the Axis Powers, and ceased to be effective with the end of those hostilities. Because there was no formal statement of its termination, however, there is concern among many Japanese-Americans that there may yet be some life in that obsolete document. I think it appropriate, in this our Bicentennial Year, to remove all doubts on that matter, and to make clear our commitment in the future.

   6NOW, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim that all authority conferred by Executive Order 9066 terminated upon the issuance of Proclamation 2714, which formally proclaimed the cessation of hostilities of World War II on December 31, 1946.

   7I call upon the American people to affirm with me this American Promise -- that we have learned from the tragedy of that long-ago experience forever to treasure liberty and justice for each individual American, and resolve that this kind of action shall never again be repeated.

   1The promulgation of Executive Order 9066 was not justified by military necessity, and the decisions which followed from it—detention, ending detention and ending exclusion—were not driven by analysis of military conditions. The broad historical causes which shaped these decisions were race prejudice, war hysteria and a failure of political leadership. Widespread ignorance of Japanese Americans contributed to a policy conceived in haste and executed in an atmosphere of fear and anger at Japan. A grave injustice was done to American citizens and resident aliens of Japanese ancestry who, without individual review or any probative evidence against them, were excluded, removed and detained by the United States during World War II.

   2In memoirs and other statements after the war, many of those involved in the exclusion, removal and detention passed judgment on those events. While believing in the context of the time that evacuation was a legitimate exercise of the war powers, Henry L. Stimson recognized that “to loyal citizens this forced evacuation was a personal injustice.” In his autobiography, Francis Biddle reiterated his beliefs at the time: “the program was ill-advised, unnecessary and unnecessarily cruel.” Justice William O. Douglas, who joined the majority opinion in Korematsu which held the evacuation constitutionally permissible, found that the evacuation case “was ever on my conscience.” Milton Eisenhower described the evacuation to the relocation camps as “an inhuman mistake.” Chief Justice Earl Warren, who had urged evacuation as Attorney General of California, stated, “I have since deeply regretted the removal order and my own testimony advocating it, because it was not in keeping with our American concept of freedom and the rights of citizens.” Justice Tom C. Clark, who had been liaison between the Justice Department and the Western Defense Command, concluded, “Looking back on it today [the evacuation] was, of course, a mistake.”

   Teacher key. 1. Ford ties the proclamation to the "Bicentennial Year," the 200th anniversary of independence, and argues that "an honest reckoning" of the past includes "our national mistakes as well as our national achievements" (paragraph 1). The anniversary year gave him a reason and an audience for looking back. 2. Ford says "not only was that evacuation wrong, but Japanese-Americans were and are loyal Americans" (paragraph 4). "Should have known then" suggests that the facts about loyalty could have been known in 1942, so the wartime view came from fear and assumptions, not from missing information alone. 3. "Race prejudice, war hysteria and a failure of political leadership" (paragraph 1). The commission explains the 1942 decisions by the conditions of the time, which is a judgment about context. 4. The phrase points to the weeks right after Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941, to February 19, 1942): decisions were made fast ("in haste"), while fear for security and anger at Japan were high. The same paragraph adds that "Widespread ignorance of Japanese Americans contributed," so the commission counts what officials did not know as part of the context.

4. Independent Practice20 minutes

   Students work alone on Source 6, the opening sections of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. Congress created the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians in 1980 (Source 5), and the commission held 20 days of hearings with more than 750 witnesses (Personal Justice Denied, Summary, page 1). Students answer Quiz Questions 12-14 and 18, then write a paragraph that compares the perspective in Source 6 with the perspective in Source 2 and names the context of each.

   1The purposes of this Act are to—

   2(1) acknowledge the fundamental injustice of the evacuation, relocation, and internment of United States citizens and permanent resident aliens of Japanese ancestry during World War II;

   3(2) apologize on behalf of the people of the United States for the evacuation, relocation, and internment of such citizens and permanent resident aliens;

   4(3) provide for a public education fund to finance efforts to inform the public about the internment of such individuals so as to prevent the recurrence of any similar event;

   5(4) make restitution to those individuals of Japanese ancestry who were interned; [...]

   6(6) discourage the occurrence of similar injustices and violations of civil liberties in the future; and

   7(7) make more credible and sincere any declaration of concern by the United States over violations of human rights committed by other nations.

   [...]

   8The Congress recognizes that, as described by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, a grave injustice was done to both citizens and permanent resident aliens of Japanese ancestry by the evacuation, relocation, and internment of civilians during World War II. As the Commission documents, these actions were carried out without adequate security reasons and without any acts of espionage or sabotage documented by the Commission, and were motivated largely by racial prejudice, wartime hysteria, and a failure of political leadership. The excluded individuals of Japanese ancestry suffered enormous damages, both material and intangible, and there were incalculable losses in education and job training, all of which resulted in significant human suffering for which appropriate compensation has not been made. For these fundamental violations of the basic civil liberties and constitutional rights of these individuals of Japanese ancestry, the Congress apologizes on behalf of the Nation.

5. Closure10 minutes

   Exit ticket. On an index card: "In ____ (year), ____ saw the removal as ____ because the context included ____. By ____ (year), ____ saw it as ____ because ____. One way the present still shapes how people see it is ____."

   Teacher notes. The sources keep the words of their time, including "evacuation," "relocation" and "internment." Source 7 explains why the National Park Service now prefers more accurate terms; use it to discuss euphemism (a mild word used in place of a harsh one) without asking students to repeat any wartime label. The wartime record, including passages quoted in Justice Murphy's Korematsu dissent outside these excerpts, contains slurs and hostile language about people of Japanese ancestry. These excerpts were chosen so that none appear; if students read the full opinions, prepare them for that language. Some students may have family histories connected to the camps or to other wartime experiences; invite, but never require, personal connections. Source 7 is the homework reading.

   1There is not universal consensus concerning terms used to describe the history of Japanese American incarceration during World War II. Highly charged debates over words and terminology continue to reflect intense feelings and diverse perspectives about what occurred during World War II and what those events mean today.

   2Many different words have been and continue to be used to describe the US government’s wartime policies toward Japanese Americans. Words used to describe the forced removal of people from their homes and communities and their subsequent incarceration include detention, confinement, evacuation, exclusion, imprisonment, incarceration, internment, and relocation. The people themselves have been referred to as evacuees, detainees, incarcerees, inmates, internees, non-aliens, and prisoners. The people have also been described as Japanese, Japanese Americans, Japanese resident aliens, Nikkei (people of Japanese ancestry), and by their generation in the United States—Issei (first generation), Nisei (second generation), Kibei (Nisei sent to Japan for education and returned to America), and Sansei (third generation). Finally, the facilities used to implement the government’s policies have been called assembly centers, camps, concentration camps, detention facilities, incarceration centers, internment camps, prisons, and war relocation centers.

   [...]

   3Words that a person uses reflect what they have experienced, their depth of knowledge, and their worldviews. The selection of particular words by an individual or by consensus within an organization may also serve ideological or political purposes. In addition, the use of specific words and our understanding of them changes over time, and this is precisely the case that the NPS and public are grappling with at this time. It is for this reason that the NPS has taken an interpretive approach to addressing terminology, one in which the topic is used as an educational tool in appropriate contexts.

   4The words we choose for interpretation and education have a profound influence on what the United States and international public understand about the incarceration experiences of Japanese Americans during World War II. We need to ensure that we are transparent and open about terminology.

Differentiation Strategies

Assessment Guidance

1. Question 1 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Justice Murphy wrote Source 3 in December 1944. Which of these is part of the historical context of his dissent, not part of his perspective?

   AThe United States was still at war with Japan when he wrote BRacial discrimination has no justifiable part in a democracy CMilitary discretion must have definite limits in wartime DThe exclusion order ought not to be approved by the Court

2. Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Source 1, paragraph 3, tells commanders to enforce the restrictions in each military area. Which means of enforcement does it name?

   AState courts and juries in each county BThe Navy and the Coast Guard acting alone CFederal troops and other federal agencies DVolunteer patrols formed by local residents

3. Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Which phrase in Source 1, paragraph 2, shows that the order gave military commanders wide discretion (freedom to decide for themselves)?

   A"deems such action necessary or desirable" B"as defined in Section 4, Act of April 20, 1918" C"to accept assistance of state and local agencies" D"by virtue of the authority vested in me as President"

4. Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Which of these is not a reason Justice Black gives in Source 2 for upholding Korematsu's exclusion?

   AThe nation was at war with the Japanese Empire BThe military feared an invasion of the West Coast CCongress had given military leaders this power DA hearing had found Korematsu disloyal

5. Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   In Source 2, paragraph 2, Black writes that legal restrictions on "a single racial group are immediately suspect." How does he still rule for the government?

   AHe finds that the order restricted no racial group BHe says pressing public necessity can justify them CHe says courts cannot review orders made in war DHe finds that Korematsu had agreed to leave

6. Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   In Source 3, paragraph 3, Murphy writes that "All residents of this nation are kin in some way by blood or culture to a foreign land." What point does this sentence support?

   AThat immigrants and their children should be watched more closely in wartime BThat the Court should defer to the military on questions of ancestry CThat ancestry is no ground for denying constitutional rights DThat only people born abroad could be made to leave

7. Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   In Source 4, paragraph 3, Ford says the War Relocation Authority's effort "may add perspective to that story, but it does not erase the setback to fundamental American principles." What does this sentence do?

   AIt credits the agency's efforts but still judges the policy wrong BIt argues that the agency's work made the removal fair after all CIt blames the agency alone for the 1942 decision to remove people DIt says the agency's records proved the removal had been necessary

8. Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   According to Source 4, paragraph 5, why did Ford think a formal statement was needed in 1976?

   ACourts had ruled that the order was still in force BMany Japanese-Americans feared the order still had some life CCongress had asked him to pay those who had been held in camps DThe Army planned to use the order in a new conflict

9. Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   What does Source 5, paragraph 1, conclude about the claim of military necessity?

   AIt justified the order but not the detention that followed BIt justified the order at first but not after the war's first year CIt justified neither the order nor the decisions that followed DIt could not be judged without the Army's secret files

10. Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Source 5, paragraph 1, says people were removed "without individual review or any probative evidence against them." What does "probative evidence" mean, and why does it matter?

    AEvidence gathered in secret; the Army kept it hidden from the courts BEvidence from witnesses; only officials had testified by that time CEvidence about property; it showed that the losses had been small DEvidence that proves a point; none was shown against individuals

11. Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Source 5, paragraph 2, says Henry L. Stimson was "believing in the context of the time that evacuation was a legitimate exercise of the war powers." What does the phrase "in the context of the time" tell the reader?

    AHe judged it by wartime conditions but later saw an injustice BHe never accepted that the policy had been legal at any time CHis memoirs were written in 1942, while the camps were being built DHe believed the courts should have stopped the evacuation

12. Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Purpose (3) of Source 6 creates a public education fund. According to the Act, what is the goal of that fund?

    ATo build a museum in each of the six western states with camps BTo train military commanders in constitutional law CTo inform the public so a similar event does not recur DTo teach the Japanese language in public schools

13. Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Source 6, paragraph 8, says the actions were "motivated largely by racial prejudice, wartime hysteria, and a failure of political leadership." How does this wording connect Source 6 to Source 5?

    ACongress rejects the commission's findings as too harsh BCongress repeats the commission's findings almost word for word CCongress relies on the Supreme Court's opinion instead of the commission DCongress adds military necessity as a fourth cause

14. Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Purpose (7) of Source 6 aims to "make more credible and sincere any declaration of concern by the United States over violations of human rights committed by other nations." What part of the context of 1988 does it point to?

    AA new conflict with Japan that members of Congress expected BAn international court ruling that had ordered the payments CA military draft then sending many Nisei soldiers overseas DIts voice on rights abroad, which this past had weakened

15. Question 15 of 20 · Short Answer

    Source 2 (1944) and Source 6 (1988) reach opposite judgments about the security reasons for the removal. Explain how the evidence available in each context shaped each perspective. Quote both.

    Show model answer

16. Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer

    Source 5, paragraph 2, describes officials who later changed their views. Choose two. For each, explain whether the change came mostly from new information, from a new context, or from both.

    Show model answer

17. Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer

    Source 4 was signed 34 years after Source 1, and Source 6 was passed 46 years after it. Explain why the passage of time alone does not explain the change in perspective. Name two other parts of the later context, with evidence.

    Show model answer

18. Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer

    Purpose (6) of Source 6 aims to "discourage the occurrence of similar injustices and violations of civil liberties in the future." Explain how this purpose looks forward as well as back, and how its perspective differs from Black's in Source 2, paragraph 3.

    Show model answer

19. Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer

    In Source 2, paragraph 3, Justice Black writes that "we deem it unjustifiable to call them concentration camps with all the ugly connotations that term implies." Using Source 7, paragraphs 2 and 3, explain how Black's choice of words reflects his 1944 perspective, and why the same term is still part of the debate today.

    Show model answer

20. Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer

    Murphy (Source 3) wrote during the war, yet his view is close to the commission's view of 1982 (Source 5). Does this weaken the claim that historical context shapes perspectives? Explain, using both sources.

    Show model answer

These standards connect to D2.His.5.9-12: prerequisites to review first, parallel standards at the same level, and next steps that build on it.

Standard text: National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards: Guidance for Enhancing the Rigor of K-12 Civics, Economics, Geography, and History (Silver Spring, MD: NCSS, 2013). NCSS was not involved in the production of this lesson and does not endorse it.