And if not, why not? What was different?
EDIT: To clarify, my question isn't so much about the treatment of minorities, though that's fascinating too. I think what I'm interested in is more of a mental shift in the perception of life itself. As sort of an example of where this question is coming from, I've been watching disaster movies, which rely inherently on fear and the uncontrollable, unfathomable, and unstoppable. The pre- and post-9/11 disaster movies are very different beasts, with pre-9/11 looking at natural disasters and aliens and that sort of thing being the main threat to your average, everyday American. In the post-9/11 world, though, you see these movies looking at terrorists and the destruction of our safe suburbia by the other rather than by some act of God. That's more what I'm interested in, that cognitive shift in the idea of what is safe and sacred and what is not. Was there that sort of shift in mindset?
Sorta. It certainly put some American citizens of the mind that the Japanese were "the other", just like many Americans did regarding Muslims in the days and months(and until today, really) after 9/11.
Since 9/11 is within the past 20 years or so(which makes it verboten for discussion), I'll simply point out that the US rounded up residents of Japanese ancestry out of fear that they were a 5th Column. The argument could be made that is was a shift of perception of security.
Before the war US aviation assets tended to be on the flightlines bunched together, the better to keep an eye out for sabotage. After the attack, the US switched to a dispersion technique so it would be harder for someone to bomb a bunch of them at once.
During the Cold War, the fear of an "atomic Pearl Harbor" was recurrent phrase used by US policymakers to describe an unexpected, undeclared Soviet sneak attack that might try to decapitate the US policy structure or the US military structure. (When the favored terminology shifted from "atomic" to "nuclear" in the late 1950s, the "Pearl Harbor" term shifted too.)
So there's a sort of connection there — it became more than the event itself, it became a symbol of vulnerability, surprise attacks, of "expecting the unexpected," and etc.
But did Pearl Harbor qua Pearl Harbor have the kind of cultural resonance that 9/11 did? After WWII, I'm not so sure. The end of WWII provided so many other cultural resonances — the power of the Soviets, the power of the atomic bomb, the power of the long-range bomber, etc. — whose influence vastly overshadows the actual events of Pearl Harbor. It seems to me that the invocation of Pearl Harbor in the postwar/Cold War is in reference to these events — e.g. the "atomic Pearl Harbor" where the atomic bomb is really the subject, and Pearl Harbor is just the way to say "it could happen."
Follow-up: After Pearl Harbor was there any substantive, cynical conspiracy rhetoric against war profiteers/the government citing Pearl Harbor and the lack of warning as something planned by the Government? For example: "The Zimmerman telegraph gave us plenty of warning, but they hid it to make sure the people would be behind the war effort."
Edit: Not soapboxing, just curious if there was that level of cynicism at the time, or if it materialized in any significant form.
Short answer: absolutely.
Just look at propaganda from that era after Pearl Harbor...Americans were suddenly very aware that they, and their country, were not invulnerable. (Propaganda had always threatened this, but with Pearl Harbor suddenly it was a real, and more focused, threat.) Unfortunately this led to paranoia towards Japanese-American citizens, which led to the internment.
To be fair though, there had already been severe tensions in the West ever since the initial gold rushes, moreso toward the Chinese immigrants but the sentiment extended to all Asians. Pearl Harbor was just the flint to a huge pile of tinder.
I would say it was a direct parallel of the perceptions after 9/11 where Americans suddenly focused on Muslims as the 'real' threat. There were already tensions there, as well, and with America still having deep conservatives, the attack on the WTC just gave them the excuse they needed. Thankfully we did not succumb to hysteria / internment a second time.
Does anyone have any more details about topics such as US, pre-and-post WWII politics of fear; changes in educational and entertainment media; other changes in the CIVILIAN ethos; and the relinquishing of civil rights?
Is there any data to the extent of the propaganda budgets during the two periods? Media markets accessed? Are the archives digital? It'd be cool to have an index to quantify propaganda.
9/11 was much worse on Americans. Pear Harbor was an attack on the NAVY and the government. 9/11 was an outright slaughter of innocent civilians in the most populated city in our nation. So no, Pear Harbor never came to the level of fear created by 9/11.