Just thought I'd point that out, to make sure you read what you wrote.  This is exactly the view and reasoning that imperialists and colonists had long before Theodore Roosevelt that actually created racism in modern society (I use modern liberally). We are superior and we deserve it, they are inferior and dont deserve it.

Franklin Roosvelt:

Roosevelt's personal racial attitudes were conventional for his time and class. Some historians argue that he nevertheless played a major role in advancing the rights of blacks, and others say it was due to prodding from Eleanor Roosevelt and liberals.

In June 1941 Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802, which created the Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC). It was the most important federal move in support of the rights of African Americans between Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Roosevelt met with Secretary of War Stimson, who persuaded him to approve Japanese Internment. Roosevelt looked at the secret evidence available to him:^[1] the Japanese in the Philippines had collaborated with the Japanese invasion troops; the Japanese in California had been strong supporters of Japan in the war against China. There was evidence of espionage compiled by code-breakers that decrypted messages to Japan from agents in North America and Hawaii before and after Pearl Harbor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt's_record_on_civil_rights

Except that Roosevelt was for intergreated said conquered peoples.

That's the difference.

Racists believed that they were inherently inferior and would always be.

Roosevelt believed that enviroment decided everything... people should be judged soley by their merits, and that any inferiorites of one race vs another would disapear in a couple generations after being exposed and getting used to the greatness of the US/Europeon culture.

While FDR just outright hated the Japanese, and there are plenty of statements to prove it.

Yes, forcible integration was common practice towards American Indians.

Though I don't think TR ever did anything like that in any way... and has a nearly spotless record on Civil Matters. 

Unlike FDR who's racism could be seen in his early days handling Haiti.

I think it's pretty inarguable that FDR was far more racist then TR... and that his polcies bared it out.

TR did more, at a time where it was even worse to do so.

FDR signed out an executive order to round people up people and put them in camps.

Not just Japanese Americans either... but kidnaped japanese immigrants from other countries as well violating their soverinty.

FDR made Bush look like a saint when it came to civil liberties.

"FDR made Bush look like a saint when it came to civil liberties."

Those Japanese were imprisoned for much less time than a lot of people in Guantanamo, and not tortured AFAIK.

And TR's enlightenment still had him saying things like, "The settler and pioneer have at bottom had justice on their side; this great continent could not have been kept as nothing but a game preserve for squalid savages."

The "civilizationist" angle is pretty arguable IMO when it just so happens that all the "civilizations" are white.  Unless you can show me that he thought otherwise? 

I mean, from what I've seen in a brief review, TR's attitude seems very close to the "White Man's Burden" theme, whereas FDR was operating on the level of equal treatment, even if he didn't always deliver. 

You say FDR is horrible for the Japanese internment camps, but you quote TR saying that atrocities towards the 'savages' are the price of progress.  Why is that more enlightened?

Not when FDR did great things for minorities, such as the equal opportunity employment act which forbid employers from not hiring people based on their race.

This is a silly argument, both men were racist just like everyone else in their time, but to somehow claim that FDR was more racist when he actually did something good for black people while TR was busy discharging whole regiments of blacks from the army (Brownsfield) is out there.

Hahaha.  I'll take Brownsfield vs Japanese Internment Anyday.

I'll also take TRs Inviting the first black man to the whitehouse, being for universal sufferage, appointing people to the white house etc.   Well above the equal oppurtunity employment act... which did nothing for people based on race because FDR did nothing to help black people get anything resembling equal education.

FEPC didn't really do anything TR already didn't... since TR already did have a standard of hiring people with no regards to race.

Simple...

He said the only correct thing to do was to treat each man soley on a person to person basis based on their abilties.

TR would of seen Japanese immivgrants as no different then anyone else, people that should be treated on a case to case basis... and not interning them.  Japanese Internment wouldn't of happened under TR.

When you look at TRs quotes he says "Dominant World Races"  in otherwords not just white.  The Japanese themselves probably also counted among this, as did black people part of the United States.

The Japanese were imprisoned for much less time... however they also had no reason for the majority of them to be there, and went around capturing people who weren't even in south america.

Furthermore he deported a masses of people to Japan... who weren't even from there... or the US, but south America.

Your logic is suffering as you try to defend your position.  I fail to see how this legislation, what historians have called the greatest advancement of rights for African Americans between abolition (1865) and the civil rights movement (1964), which forbid employers from not hiring people based on their race, as doing nothing for black people.

But now you're applying his views on something to be done on a case by case basis (judging individuals) to something done en masse (treatment of large groups).  Lots of people have seemingly contrary views there.  Also, isn't it the case that he actually considered blacks generally inferior, but that he allowed for individuals to rise above to the level of whites?  So he might be consistent in supporting treating black and white peoples differently but always treating individuals according to their own merits, if the black peoples are inferior to the white peoples generally. 

As for "Dominant World Races", I think a lot of (white) people from that time period were considering different European groups as entire different races (whereas most now group them into "white" or at most "white/Hispanic").  I am completely unconvinced that the DWR reference applied in TR's consideration to the Japanese instead of the "races" being (perhaps) Nordic, Mediterranean, and Eastern European.  Can you give me an example where Roosevelt considered a non-white group to be a dominant race of his time? 

Hell, he might well have considered the Japanese an example of savages becoming civilized by the proper method of copying the DWR culture, since they spent the entire late 1800s co-opting European technology/science/government/etc.

On the other hand, maybe not.  Can you show me otherwise?