From: masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda)
Subject: Re: Not a Myth at All
Organization: Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:52:33 GMT

In article <1i8i7cINNm0h@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> keis@psy.uwa.oz.au (Keis Ohtsuka) writes:
>fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:

>>I see. So Japanese racism is a different, mild sort of inescapable thing.
>>Hardly a thing to be concerned about at all, right?
>
>>I see. Again, Japanese racism is a unique kinda thing. 

>The questions we all have to consider are:
>Is there such a thing called a "kindler and gentler" racism?

   As the system at our site seems to have falied to receive message for the
last three days, I don't know if my last posting in this thread was 
successfully posted or what kind of response (or flame) I received. However,
a few lines of the posting above makes me suspect that I was not able to make
my point understood.

>Furthermore, a degree of bigotry should be used as an effective
>defence for the perpetrators (i.e., the posters of "Foreigners 
>Only" signs) of basic human rights?

   I'm not sure if this is just a Freudian slip, but Ohtsuka-san probably
meant to say, "Japanese Only." (If I missed some conversation on "Foreigners
Only" signs, I'm sorry.)

   BTW, as I recall it, there was a cafe in Harajuku, Tokyo, where they had
seats only for "gaijin." It may not be directly related to this discussion,
but I was just reminded of it by "Foreigners Only."

.....
>Japanese defendants
>so blatantly violated the basic human rights of aliens by
>posting a racist message, "Foreigners Only." 

   The "Foreigners Only" policy that I mentioned above was used to make
the place look like popular among gaijin. Gaijin customers sitting close
to the window were highly visible from the street and gave an exotic 
atmosphere to the place. Although I don't know if it violated the basic
human rights or not, I don't think that using gaijin customers as free
advertisement (or "hito-yose panda" in Japanese) only because of their 
race was the best thing to do. 

>In my opinion, any messages excluding people
>based on ethnic origin is racist and should be dealt with such.

  Can't agree more. Neither can most Japanese, probably.

>  When it happens in
>South Africa, we called it Apartheit and vigorously oppesed it.
>Why should we let it pass when it happens in Japan?  

  If someone starts to equalize the "gaijin okotowari" policy to Apartheit,
the owner of the bar might start "Japanese language only" policy and
exclude those who do not have a sufficient command of Japanese (remember
the literacy test in the US). It IS possible to maintain their policy
in a way that doesn't look like based on race. They might say to a foreigner,
"All the vacant seats are already reserved" (as one restaurant in our town is
said to do to non-white customers).

  As I mentioned in my previous posting, "gaijin okotowari" would not be
regarded as racism by Japanese in Japan and it might not be an expression
of inherently racist attitude of the shopowner (he might be using that
policy just to protect his business and be an enthusiastic fan of, say, 
Cindy Crawford at the same time). If you try to persuade him that it is
wrong because it is racism ("jinshu sabetsu") same as the one the US 
and South Africa has, he might not understand your logic and would not
see the reason why he should abondon that policy. Instead if you tell him 
that it is wrong to discriminate all the people in a certain group due to
the misbehavior or bad reputation of only a part of the group, chances 
would be higher that he understands your point and finally realizes that
there are other form of racism than the one he has had in mind.

--Michiaki
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan