Mae M. Ngai’s “Impossible Subjects,” introduces the difficult decisions that Japanese Americans were forced to make while stuck in numerous internment camps throughout the United States during World War II. In her article, Ngai presents the idea of “renunciation” - the concept of formally renouncing one’s American citizenship - as a mass phenomenon which thousands of Japanese citizens would ultimately commit to due to a variety of reasons including (but not limited to) desires to keep families together by remaining in camps or simple anger at the government’s poor treatment of the citizens. Though Ngai is diligent in her representation of various historical interpretations of the reasoning behind such high numbers of those willing to denounce their American citizenship, it was ultimately the author’s own views on the subject which stood out to me. Unlike the often-presented argument that individuals who participated in renunciation were ultimately coerced into a state of “mass delirium” by government officials, Ngai diverts from such an idea and states the following: “The problem with the overemphasis on intimidation and coercion is that it casts the renunciants as victims without individual agency. It constructs them as people whose actions were controlled by others, whether coercive parents or fanatical pressure groups.” Truthfully, I see both strengths and complications in the arguments that the author presents. On the one hand, Ngai raises an imperative point on page 200, explaining how the mass-delirium theory “leaves intact the belief that Japanese Americans were categorically not disloyal.” While it is easy to focus entirely on the narrative of the so-called “loyal” Japanese American citizens, Ngai is correct in stating that in order to create an accurate and full-fleshed depiction of the event, history must be reported from all sides - and, as is mentioned many times, there were many living in the camps who developed highly nationalistic Japanese identities. The main issue I hold with Ngai’s argument, then, is the association with renunciation both being a reflection of agency as well as a representation of disloyalty. Indeed, Ngai herself provides her reader with the many reasons why Japanese Americans may have wished to renounce their citizenship, with the majority hoping to stay in internment camps rather than be relocated elsewhere (very few desired to actually be deported from the country). Given the extremely precarious and mentally-tolling situations that thousands were placed into, is it fair to then say that most internment prisoners truly had much agency in their decisions? When thinking about this question I was reminded of coercion in the context of Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson in Monticello - even if Jefferson had in fact “allowed” Hemings to choose if she wished to engage in a sexual relationship, the long-established social hierarchy and fear of repercussion arguably left her with little choice but to accept. Somewhat similarly, many Japanese Americans, in an unpredictable, unstable environment and (rightfully) dedicated to looking out for themselves and their families really had no other choice but to follow the only path that was handed to them - making many not really disloyal, but really rather prudent. Regardless of opinion, however, as historians continue to grapple with this question, there is no doubt that, as Ngai puts it, the experiences of Japanese Americans will be “critical to the collective memory of internment.”