• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Oh, dear lord - right-wing columnist's new book defends WWII Japanese internment

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pimpwerx

Member
I'm not even sure why the quality of the camps is even really an issue. Regardless of whether or not the camp is a pound-me-in-the-ass prison or a resort, isn't the entire act of forcefully relocating people against their will enough to invalidate the entire position? That seems to be a violation of human dignity and fundamental freedoms that would be justifiable no matter where they were sent to (and also regardless of whether they were citizens or non-citizens).

Hitting the nail on the head there.

NO government has a right to forcefully imprison people without due process and without probable cause. Our government is just a bunch of people. Ignorant and xenophobic people, but just plain people. What gives them any right to lock someone up? It could be WW3 and I'd still be annoyed by such actions. If you have to resort to such extreme measures for your security, then maybe security isn't really worth it. Those asian prisoners had their rights taken away for no reason for most of them. It's a topic we never covered in my hs, and few do. Kudos to those who learned about it in school, you had good teachers. I had to learn this from Discovery Channel. PEACE.
 

FoneBone

Member
Pimpwerx said:
Hitting the nail on the head there.

NO government has a right to forcefully imprison people without due process and without probable cause. Our government is just a bunch of people. Ignorant and xenophobic people, but just plain people. What gives them any right to lock someone up? It could be WW3 and I'd still be annoyed by such actions. If you have to resort to such extreme measures for your security, then maybe security isn't really worth it. Those asian prisoners had their rights taken away for no reason for most of them. It's a topic we never covered in my hs, and few do. Kudos to those who learned about it in school, you had good teachers. I had to learn this from Discovery Channel. PEACE.
IAWTP. And you conservatives who seem willing to defend internment -- you fucking disgust me.
 

border

Member
Some of the concentration camp fans do have particularly bizarre arguments. It's okay to imprison the innocent, as long as they aren't official US citizens!
 
Whoa, I'm not coming down on either side. I'm pointing out some misinformation. I'll be absolutely sure not to get involved in a discussion of the book here, because that would bring even more such fun comments as "stupid" and "you fucking disgust me". And I didn't even write the book or anything. I can only imagine the vicious ad hominem attacks that Malkin's going to be hit with.
 

Guileless

Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
This was covered at my high school, extensively in a college class, and the Supreme Court case--Korematsu--was the first case we read in Constiutional Law. While it's true that Japanese spies were responsible for all of the extensive Pearl Harbor intelligence that made it such a Japanese success, they were working pretty much in the open. Security was non-existent. They weren't Bourne Identity-style superspies who spoke 8 languages and could disappear in an instant. They basically rode around Hawaii on bikes taking pictures of the fleet. Basic security precautions could prevent Japanese spying of that sort.

I don't think you can make any argument in 2004, knowing what we know, that the internment even served some useful purpose despite the fact it was clearly illegal. And I notice in the snippet of the book desricption she does not advance a single argument as to why it was a good idea. Holding thousands of people when maybe a handful are a danger is not a good use of resources.

But I understand how it happened, and hell if I lived in 1941 and the Japanese had sneak attacked and were kicking our asses all over the Pacific I might not have minded the internment. People just didn't know what was going to happen and they were scared. Now of course we have the benefit of hindsight and I can't imagine this book being very persuasive.
 

Alcibiades

Member
Diablos said:
I love how the military and government is trying to cover up every fucking mistake they've ever made.

wow, they are really trying to cover up Pearl Harbor and Vietnam...

yeah, when are they going to come clean about what happened there...
 

border

Member
efralope said:
wow, they are really trying to cover up Pearl Harbor and Vietnam...
Haha, I see what you are trying to do here, but it's pretty ironic considering how in both events there were things that the government was willing to overlook or just not tell people about. It took the digging of an outsider to discover something like Roosevelt's foreknowledge that an attack on Pearl Harbor was coming, or the massacre at My Lai. I dunno about concerted cover-ups, but the US certainly has lied by omission.
 

Guileless

Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
border, FDR did not know Pearl Harbor was going to happen. Please explain your reasoning if you disagree.
 
Guileless said:
border, FDR did not know Pearl Harbor was going to happen. Please explain your reasoning if you disagree.
I'd heard the theory before, but never looked it up. Here's the first result I got with a search for Pearl Harbor foreknowledge.

http://www.independent.org/tii/news/020311Cirignano.html
On November 25, 1941 Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto sent a radio message to the group of Japanese warships that would attack Pearl Harbor on December 7. Newly released naval records prove that from November 17 to 25 the United States Navy intercepted eighty-three messages that Yamamoto sent to his carriers. Part of the November 25 message read: “…the task force, keeping its movements strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet in Hawaii and deal it a mortal blow…”

“Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars,” was Roosevelt’s famous campaign statement of 1940. He wasn’t being ingenuous. FDR’s military and State Department leaders were agreeing that a victorious Nazi Germany would threaten the national security of the United States. In White House meetings the strong feeling was that America needed a call to action. This is not what the public wanted, though. Eighty to ninety percent of the American people wanted nothing to do with Europe’s war. So, according to Stinnett, Roosevelt provoked Japan to attack us, let it happen at Pearl Harbor, and thus galvanized the country to war. Many who came into contact with Roosevelt during that time hinted that FDR wasn’t being forthright about his intentions in Europe. After the attack, on the Sunday evening of December 7, 1941, Roosevelt had a brief meeting in the White House with Edward R. Murrow, the famed journalist, and William Donovan, the founder of the Office of Strategic Services. Later Donovan told an assistant the he believed FDR welcomed the attack and didn’t seem surprised. The only thing Roosevelt seemed to care about, Donovan felt, was if the public would now support a declaration of war. According to Day Of Deceit, in October 1940 FDR adopted a specific strategy to incite Japan to commit an overt act of war. Part of the strategy was to move America’s Pacific fleet out of California and anchor it in Pearl Harbor. Admiral James Richardson, the commander of the Pacific fleet, strongly opposed keeping the ships in harm’s way in Hawaii. He expressed this to Roosevelt, and so the President relieved him of his command. Later Richardson quoted Roosevelt as saying: “Sooner or later the Japanese will commit an overt act against the United States and the nation will be willing to enter the war.”
 

border

Member
AFAIK there are many many theories about how Pearl Harbor played out, but most people will concede that there was some advance knowledge of an attack. Some people construct elaborate theories about how the US was intentionally provoking Japan but others say that they just quietly ignored warnings in hopes that an attack would help win public support for the war. The intricacies of everything will probably forever be in contention.

TheSmokingGun has a copy of an old memo warning about an attack on Pearl Harbor (dated Feb. 1, 1941). There's also books like this that come up with really far-flung theories that I don't buy into so much...

image50.jpg


After decades of Freedom of Information Act requests, Robert B. Stinnett has gathered the long-hidden evidence that shatters every shibboleth of Pearl Harbor. It shows that not only was the attack expected, it was deliberately provoked through an eight-step program devised by the Navy. Whereas previous investigators have claimed that our government did not crack Japan's military codes before December 7, 1941, Stinnett offers cable after cable of decryptions. He proves that a Japanese spy on the island transmitted information--including a map of bombing targets--beginning on August 21, and that government intelligence knew all about it. He reveals that Admiral Kimmel was prevented from conducting a routine training exercise at the eleventh hour that would have uncovered the location of the oncoming Japanese fleet. And contrary to previous claims, he shows that the Japanese fleet did not maintain radio silence as it approached Hawaii. Its many coded cables were intercepted and decoded by American cryptographers in Stations on Hawaii and in Seattle.

The evidence is overwhelming. At the highest levels---on FDR's desk--America had ample warning of the pending attack. At those same levels, it was understood that the isolationist American public would not support a declaration of war unless we were attacked first. The result was a plan to anger Japan, to keep the loyal officers responsible for Pearl Harbor in the dark, and thus to drag America into the greatest war of her existence.
 

Matt

Member
I have trouble believing that argument for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that United States did not declare war on Germany and Italy when they declared war on Japan. Germany and Italy declared war on us.
 

Guileless

Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Lord knows there was ample warning. An American wrote a book in the 30s that predicted that the Japanese would be wise to start a war with the United States by hitting the fleet at Pearl Harbor. With hindsight it's absolutely clear that somebody should have realized that a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was imminent. But that is far away from concluding that FDR knew about it and deliberately let it happen, or that the Navy would allow the fleet to withstand such devastating damage and be completely humiliated. I'm not going to believe something that counterintuitve without compelling evidence.

I've read John Toland's book (which won the Pulitzer) called Rising Sun, which dismisses this theory. (I flipped through it but can't find the relevant passage and the index is unhelpful.) His scholarship is very persuasive.
 

maharg

idspispopd
Matt said:
I have trouble believing that argument for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that United States did not declare war on Germany and Italy when they declared war on Japan. Germany and Italy declared war on us.

You mean when one country of the Axis was attacked, the others reacted as if members of an alliance? Shock and Awe!
 

Stele

Holds a little red book
It was a perfunctory alliance. There was practically no meaningful cooperation due to distance and probably race relations, lol.
 

Matt

Member
maharg said:
You mean when one country of the Axis was attacked, the others reacted as if members of an alliance? Shock and Awe!
Umm, yeah, it is surprising. In fact, Hitler’s dedication to his allies was one of his strangest attributes IMO.
 

DonasaurusRex

Online Ho Champ
The only reason hitler was so swift to declare war on us was because of his plans to declare war on russia and he had HOPED they too would declare war on russia so that stalin wouldnt be able to rely on his troops from that side of his country hahah noob.
 

maharg

idspispopd
I think he simply didn't want his alliance to fall apart before he was ready, and not declaring war on an aggressor of an ally could have caused that, and it wasn't worth the risk when he probably felt the US wouldn't even make a huge effort due to being occupied by the Japanese.

In both world wars, there were alliances that were honored against unbelievable odds, or else they would hardly have become world wars. It should, almost by default, be more surprising if they hadn't than that they did.
 

Prospero

Member
FoneBone said:
I've been a tad hesitant to bump this thread, but this NPR broadcast (from yesterday) with Malkin and a critic is well worth listening to:
http://www.whyy.org/rameta/RT/2004/RT20040825_20.ram

Summary of what Malkin has said so far (from what I've listened to):

Michelle Malkin said:
I'm not advocating internment of Arabs and Muslims! Stop your liberal fearmongering! All I'm doing is advocating internment of Arabs and Muslims, which is altogether different from advocating internment of Arabs and Muslims! Pardon me while I beat up this straw man!
 
Kobun Heat said:
I've done research. "Over half" of the detainees were children so that takes care of 50%. Then you have adult American citizens who went in voluntarily with their elderly parents, husbands going in with wives, etc.

A lot of American citizens went in voluntarily or along with their parents, but that doesn't mean that the aim of the camps was to intern "American citizens." If you were a citizen, you could leave.

Could you give us some links that showed that citizens could leave? Most of the evidence I've seen indicates that freedom was difficult to obtain (going into the military is the only way out I can think of).

Lobbyists from western states, many representing competing economic interests or nativist groups, pressured Congress and the President to remove persons of Japanese descent from the west coast, both foreign born (issei – meaning “first generation” of Japanese in the U.S.) and American citizens (nisei – the second generation of Japanese in America, U.S. citizens by birthright.) During Congressional committee hearings, Department of Justice representatives raised constitutional and ethical objections to the proposal, so the U.S. Army carried out the task instead.

Nearly 70,000 of the evacuees were American citizens. The government made no charges against them, nor could they appeal their incarceration. All lost personal liberties; most lost homes and property as well. Although several Japanese Americans challenged the government’s actions in court cases, the Supreme Court upheld their legality. Nisei were nevertheless encouraged to serve in the armed forces, and some were also drafted. Altogether, more than 30,000 Japanese Americans served with distinction during World War II in segregated units.
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=74
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/89manzanar/89facts2.htm
89doc1bl.gif


ALSO, it was not really possible for immigrants to obtain American citizenship. There is the possibility that these people could have been American citizens by then anyways, but the laws would not allow it.
1790 to 1952: American immigration law does not allow Japanese aliens resident in the United States to become American citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, adopted in 1868, provided that all people born in the United States, including people of Japanese descent, were American citizens. The Immigration Act of 1924 provided that aliens who were ineligible for citizenship including people of Japanese descent, would not be allowed to immigrate to the United States. The McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 removed the ethnic and racial bars to immigration and naturalization; Japanese could now immigrate to the United States and become naturalized citizens, and Japanese aliens resident in the United States, some for many years, could now become naturalized citizens.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/japanese_internment/background.htm

Really, I don't know how people can defend such actions.
 

Azih

Member
'evacuation' vs 'eviction'

'evacuation centres' vs ' concentration camps'

I just have to be suspicious of somebody who abuses language to this extent.
 
From A People and a Nation, an American History textbook:

"During the war, the government interned 14,426 Europeans in Enemy Alien Camps. Fearing subversion from aliens born in enemy countries, the government also prohibitied ten thousand Italian Americans from living or working in restricted zones along the California coast, including San Francisco and Monterey Bay."


"...the internment in 'relocation centers' of, ultimately, 120,000 Japanese Americans. Of these people, 77,000 were Nisei--native born citizens of the United States....in 1942 all the 112,000 Japanese Americans living in California, Oregon, and the state of Washington were round up and imprisoned."
(Nisei is the term for the first generation of children of Japanese immigrants. By the way, the Nisei were not initially at the camps of their own will, it was only after I believe 6-12 months at the camps that they were given freedom to leave while the non-citizen Japanese remained imprisoned.)


"General John L. DeWitt, chief of the Western Defense Commmand, warned, 'The Japanese race is an enemy race and while many second and third generation Japanese born on United States soil, possessed of United States citizenship, have become 'Americanized,' the racial strains are undiluted....It, therefore, follows that along the vital Pacific Coast over 112,000 potential enemies, of Japanese extraction, are at large today.'"

From the same general:
"'The very fact that no sabotage [by Japanese Americans] has taken place to date is a disturbing and confirming indication that such action will be taken.'"


"During the war, charges of criminal behavior were never brought against any Japanese Americans; none were ever indicted for espionage, treason, or sedition"


""The camps were bleak and demoralizing. Behind barbed wire stood tarpapered wooden barracks where entire families lived in a single room furnished only with cots, blankets, and a bare light bulb. Toilets and dining and bathing facilities were communal; privacy was almost nonexistent. Japanese Americans were forced to sell property valued at $500 million, and they lost their positions in the truck-garden, floral, and fishing industries. Indeed, their economic competitors were among the most vocal proponents of their relocation."


"In 1983, forty-one years after he had been sent to a government camp, Fred Korematsu had the satisfaction of hearing a federal judge rule that he--and by implication all detainees--had been the victim of 'unsubstantiated facts, distortions and misrepresentations of at least one military commander whose views were affected by racism'....Finally, in 1988, Congress voted to award $20,000 and a public apology to each of the surviving sixty thousand Japanese American internees."
 
BlackTyrano said:
"In 1983, forty-one years after he had been sent to a government camp, Fred Korematsu had teh satisfaction of hearing a federal judge rule that he--and by implication all detainees--had been the victim of 'unsubstantiated facts, distortions and misrepresentations of at least one military commander whose views were affected by racism'....Finally, in 1988, Congress voted to award $20,000 and a public apology to each of the surviving sixty thousand Japanese American internees."

Yeah it boggles my mind that it took them that long to apologize for something so obvious, especially after so many of them had already died from age.
 

Azih

Member
Oh no,

<Malkin> these people could leave anytime they wanted
<Critic> No you coulnd't they were locked in
<Malkin> Look they weren't concentration camps! War is brutal!
 
Azih said:
Oh no,

<Malkin> these people could leave anytime they wanted
<Critic> No you coulnd't they were locked in
<Malkin> Look they weren't concentration camps! War is brutal!

WTF did she actually say that? This computer doesn't run very well.
 

Azih

Member
Basically yeah. What happened was this

Malkin was objecting to the use of the word 'concentration camp' and said that Roosevelt 'evacuated' first and second generation Japanese-Americans to open gated communites in the Mid west (away from the West coast). She said that in her opinon these camps were run 'humanely'. The critic (dammit forgot his name Eric something) pointed out that the governor of Wyoming said that any 'japs' settled in Wyoming would be hanging from trees and that the governor of Idaho insisted that 'for the safety' of the Idaho people the Japanese be put in concentration camps, and so the 'communites' were closed up and barbed wire put up around there.

Malkin responded dishonestly (since thse 'evacuation centers' start looking like the prisons that they are) saying 'well the relocation authority couldn't leave them open and vulnerable' and later fell back to the 'well you know War is ugly' argument. All of this hurts her case that the Japanese internemnt was purely a millitary necessity and racism had almost nothing to do with it.

Edit: It also hurts her bizzarely callous attempt to minimise what was obviosly an extremely traumatic and intense violation of liberties.
 

way more

Member
Conservatives shouldn't be allowed to use pc words for terms like genocide, concentration camps, and illegall imprisonment.
 

Makura

Member
Azih said:
All of this hurts her case that the Japanese internemnt was purely a millitary necessity and racism had almost nothing to do with it.

That actually isn't her thesis. Did you listen to the audio? She makes it crystal clear at the 3:00 min. mark:

"(my thesis) is NOT that racsim had no part"
 

FoneBone

Member
Makura said:
That actually isn't her thesis. Did you listen to the audio? She makes it crystal clear at the 3:00 min. mark:

"(my thesis) is NOT that racsim had no part"
Yes, but she's clearly trying to minimize the role played by racism.
 

Azih

Member
There's two issues here.

1) Millitary justification for the internment was the MAGIC interceptions, the primary defense for the MAGIC defense is this General Lowman, who is quoted heavily by Malkin, now I don't know the details of this particular argument, but certainly the history professor critic of Malkin doesn't think much of Lowman, and I'm pretty certain that curent academic scholarship doesn't think much of Lowman either. This kind of argument is by it's very nature extremely technical and based on detail (I'm certainly not qualified to delve into it any deeper). Suffice it to say that the MAGIC documents are at best suspect and Malkin's book isn't technical enough to qualify as an addition to the debate on how much weight should be given to the documents. She just said 'they exist' to which everybody who's studied this goes 'Yeah we know, they aren't very good'.


2) You're putting up a straw man Makura, the argument isn't and has never been binary. Nobody can defend a position that it was just security concerns or just racism that caused the internments. The book isn't named "Japanese Internment was based partly on military intelligence' it's named "In defense of internment", this is a completely different kettle of fish as the argument is not what you said it was (debunking the myth that that it wasn't based AT ALL on military intelligence) but instead is on whether the internment was JUSTIFIED or not.

Which is a discussion on how much the decision to carry out internments was based on racism and how much on valid security concerns and how severe the actions were. The more it's based on racism the less justified it is and the more it's based on security concerns the more justified it is. The less severe the displacement of the Japanese was the more justifed the action was, the more severe, the less justified.

Malkin hasn't done a very good job in playing down the racism aspect, she hasn't done a good job in playing up the security argument, and she hasn't been able to pull off her unbelievable attempt to portray the displacement and internment as being not that bad.
 

firex

Member
I'm glad Kobun's retarded ass got banned, but quite frankly every other person supporting this kind of outright racism and discrimination should also be banned.
It may be a work of fiction, but if you want a nearly autobiographical story of a Japanese American thrown into one of these internment camps and how WW2 destroyed one of his friends (another Japanese American, both born on American soil), get No-No Boy by John Okada.
 

Celicar

Banned
Cyan said:
Do you mean in general, or are you agreeing with this nonsense?

Note: Japanese internment camps were concentration camps. They weren't Nazi concentration camps (i.e. no gas chambers, torture, etc) but they were certainly concentration camps.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=concentration camp
concentration camp
n.

1. A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions.


Yeah, I agree with her. Things turned out okay. Imagine if we didn't have internment camps. Things could have turned out worse.
 

Celicar

Banned
Are Asian Americans bitter about this whole ordeal? After all these years? Malkin is asian and she seems to be fine with it. And besides, they got restitutions.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Celicar said:
Yeah, I agree with her. Things turned out okay.

No they didn't, a dangerous precedent was set. To defend internment camps, now or in the past, is to defend the government's right to lock up United States citizens indefinitely, without charge, in questionable, if not downright horrible conditions.

There's a reason why a public, official apology was issued.

Putting people behind a fence based on something as trivial as nationality, especially in 2004, is abhorrent. You need something more precise to measure their true motives, and ethnicity does nothing for that. And you know, people fling the word "treason" around a lot these days. I wouldn't necessarily reserve it for Michelle, but she's skating pretty close to it when she's openly defending the idea of taking the rights of people away based on nothing but paranoia, xenophobia, and the population's ability to play off of the worst kinds of stereotypes.

We need to be, and we can be, smarter than that.
 

firex

Member
Cyan said:
Why? Idiocy still isn't a bannable offense.

Farewell to Manzanar is another good account, but I can't remember the author's name.
If Kobun is banned for claiming it's all right to throw Japanese people into concentration camps, then I don't see why any of the other people suggesting such detestable things are still posting.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
firex said:
If Kobun is banned for claiming it's all right to throw Japanese people into concentration camps, then I don't see why any of the other people suggesting such detestable things are still posting.

Just a hunch, but by implication, I think his banning had something to do with going a bit overboard in the Fable thread over in the GF.
 

Stele

Holds a little red book
Celicar said:
Are Asian Americans bitter about this whole ordeal? After all these years? Malkin is asian and she seems to be fine with it. And besides, they got restitutions.
Malkin is Filipino, and the Philippines definitely were a victim of Japanese barbarism. I really doubt she's coming from that angle though (most second-generation Americans are clueless), because she's conservative in quite a few other facets.
 

firex

Member
xsarien said:
Just a hunch, but by implication, I think his banning had something to do with going a bit overboard in the Fable thread over in the GF.
After I read your response I went and looked at that thread, and you're probably right. Which is really disappointing to me -- apparently, stupid pictures with sir mix-a-lot quotes are a bannable offense (unless there's something else in them that I missed), but the equivalent of saying "well locking up thousands of dirty Japs in WW2 wasn't a bad thing at all and they were living very comfortably" isn't.

I just don't see why this is allowed behavior. Not because of any desire for me to see the mods and admins police people's thoughts, but just because I feel that these kinds of sentiments expressed by supporters of such disgusting atrocities only degrade all the other discussions that could be normal.

I hate preaching about morality, but I sincerely feel this is a case where common decency is being thrown out the window, and it's only getting worse as politics heat up more and more on this forum.
 

FoneBone

Member
Firex, I'm just as pissed at Kobun as you are, but I don't think there's much of anything else that can be done about it, if he's seen as staying in the TOS. You can always put assholes like him on ignore, though.
 
Celicar said:
Are Asian Americans bitter about this whole ordeal? After all these years? Malkin is asian and she seems to be fine with it.

Like Stele said, Malkin is from Philipino heritage. It was the Japanese-Americans who were rounded up and kept inside the "internment camps", not the Philipino-Americans. Don't generalize Asians all into one group... the differences in cultures and histories are tremendous. Furthermore, one example of a person descended from Philipino stock doesn't mean anything.

And besides, they got restitutions.

AFTER NEARLY 40 YEARS AFTER IT HAPPENED. Money really isn't the issue here. I've interviewed a few Japanese-Americans who endured the "internment camps" and they agreed that it wasn't about the money but the APOLOGY. You can't bribe away the past.
 

Makura

Member
Azih said:
Malkin hasn't done a very good job in playing down the racism aspect, she hasn't done a good job in playing up the security argument, and she hasn't been able to pull off her unbelievable attempt to portray the displacement and internment as being not that bad.

This is the last time I'm going to go into this...
1. She's not trying to play down anything
2. She's not trying to portray the internment as "not that bad."

As far as evidence goes, Muller already brings up these same points in the radio debate which Malkin answers on the air.

You can also read her rebuttals here:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000446.htm
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000435.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom