From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: Not a Myth at All
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:37:20 GMT

In article <C0I0qF.L6p@ncifcrf.gov> masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.155827.1075@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>>In article <C0G98r.5I1@ncifcrf.gov> masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda) writes:
>
>>>   For example, if a shopowner deals with an American customers who have a
>>>command of Japanese and not with those who cannot communicate in Japanese,
>>>that discrimination is not based on race. I used the TOEFL example 
>>>because I saw the analogy with this type of situation.
>
>>Again, how is it analagous?
>
>   In both cases, people with the better communication skill are offered
>more opportunities and service.

Uh, no, the TOEFL is not given on the basis of race. However, in Japan, people
can be (and are) denied service on the basis of race.

>>>>   Does this make it OK for those who suffered to punish all people of
>>>>a different race from themselves?
>
>>>   It is nothing related to race. The enemy could have been Asian, Indian,
>>>Caucasian, African, whatever. Historically, there should have been similar
>>>partizan activities between Japanese, too.
>
>>Also, B H Chamberlain makes reference to "No Foreigners" signs in his book,
>>written in 1904. Britain and Japan were allies at the time.

>   I thought we were talking about the "No Foreigners" sings posted shortly
>AFTER WWII that YOU mentioned, Fester-san.

We were, then you mentioned something about "enemy". As there were signs 
keeping non-ememies out for a long time, that hardly seems reasonable.

>>>  Let's imagine most Japanese stores rejected American customers. Those 
>>>stroes should have had a bad reputation in the occupation army. One 
>>>possible consequence is that many GIs frequent other small number of
>>>stores where they are welcome. In those days, it was most likely that
>>>dealing with Americans were highly beneficial at least economically. 
>
>>However, the signs forbidding foreigners went up almost immediately. Sure
>>looks racist.
>
>   I don't get why "almost immediately" makes it more racist than, say,
>"after 6 months."

Uh, how about they couldn't have had any bad experiences BEFORE they the 
occupying soldiers on their soil.

>>>  If the discrimination is based on language differences and an
>>>appropriate language skill lets them avoid discrimination, calling it
>>>as racism would not be appropriate. 
>
>>Yet that's how you labelled the TOEFL.
>
>   ??? 

My reaction, too. You called the TOEFL an example of racism similar to posting
"No gaijin" signs.

>>>  As far as I know, in Florida where there are an increasing number of
>>>Spanish-speaking immigrants, they decided to make English as _the official_
>>>language. This could justify any disadvantage that people suffer based on
>>>a language difference. If this can be called as a racist regulation,
>>>there should be some action taken to abolish it.
>
>>News flash: English IS the official language of all the United States. Has 
>>been since its inception.
>
>   Are you sure about this? The newspaper article which I read said that
>in Maryland where I live, there was a movement to make English _the official_
>language. In the same article, it was said that only in Florida and Hawaii,
>there is a legislation to define English as _the official_ language.
>In Maryland, we can still take a written exam for driver's license in 
>Spanish and Korean as well as English. (Is it ture that they have even a
>Japanese exam in N.J.?)

Uh, yes I am very certain of this; the first Continental Congress voted English
the official language of the United States (the runner-up was German; by a 
single vote). 

>   Oh well, my memory could be worng. If that is the case, I apologize for
>my misinformation. I'd appreciate it if you could let me know how
>English is defined as the official language in the US.

See above.

>>Hmm. So those naturalized Japanese citizens of non-Asian background are not
>>victims of racism at all, but of nationalism (even if they are Japanese.)
>
>   It is true that a long history of racial homogeneity (except for several
>minority population such as Ainu) in Japan makes Japanese stereotypically
>think that non-Japanese-looking person is non-Japanese. Personally, I don't
>know any non-Asian naturalized Japanese citizens around me, and I can
>do nothing better than imagining some scenarioes where they are 
>_vicitimized_. I'd be happy to know the actual incidents and discuss how
>we should solve those problems. 
>
>>>P.S. Al, why don't we do some experiments in Tokyo? If you could find some
>>>"gaijin okotowari" bars, what about going there together to see how they
>>>react?
>
>>Not at all hard to find.
>
>   Uh, I'm thinking of going out for a drink with Al, not you, Fester.
>So, it doesn't matter a lot whether you can find a place or not. If Al
>invites you, that's another story.

You can try a couple places in Roppongi, and LOTS of places in Saitama. As I
said, they are not hard to find.

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - These opinions are not so much opinions, as pearls of wisdom. Any-
one disagreeing is obviously either a) a snivelling, whining, mentally-
deficient, weak-willed, inconsequential, namby-pamby tool of some vague but
conveniently defined conspiracy, or b) my wife.