From: jcliu@four-lab4.Berkeley.EDU (James C. Liu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan
Subject: Re: Not a Myth at All
Date: 10 Jan 93 00:29:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.1inqlf$nij
Organization: UC Berkeley Dept. of Nuclear Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: four-lab4.berkeley.edu

In article <1993Jan09.221919.12317@gibdo.engr.washington.edu> 
tvp@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Tad Perry) writes:

  >You [Ref. to Michiaki Masuda] keep speaking as if every form of
  >discrimination is just as bad as racial discrimination. Let me give
  >you some examples of clear discrimination that are not only
  >acceptable, but are aggressively encouraged:

  >1. Smoking...
  >2. Dumb people...
  >3. Criminals...

  >There is something wrong with "gaijin okotowari". There is nothing
  >wrong with "irezumi okotowari".  One is highly frowned upon by the
  >majority of the mainstream populous. These people would show up with
  >signs at a rally to protest such a practice. On the other hand, nobody
  >except people with tattoes cares about "irezumi okotowari". It's a
  >non-issue.

Which mainstream populous?  America's or Japan's?  In both Japan and 
the US, it's usually the outside +/- 1.5 sigma people who attend the
rallies.  The mainstream stay at home at and make comments about how,
"all 'em damn crazy protestors are at it again.."  Also, not everyone
with a tattoo is crazy.  Why should they be discriminated against?

  >You [Ref. M. Masuda] obviously have a firm grasp of what *discrimination*
  >is. You just haven't made the next step and learned how to distinguish 
  >*racial* discrimination from other types. You talk about a definition of 
  >racism where the *characteristic* of a race is used to discriminate.  You
  >appear to think that because the *characteristic*, not the race, is
  >the basis for the discrimination that the result is not racism but
  >something else. No. No. No...

Racial discrimination is a subset of discrimination.  The question is
'Is it justified?'  Perry-san, you seem to see racial discrimination 
with absolute prohibition.  But if that's the case, then who takes
responsibility for correcting cultural flaws associated with race? That
is, if there is a problem with a certain racial segment of society, then
how does the entire society correct that problem if not by discriminating?
Example in point:  Vietnamese and other So. East Asians exhibit many
cases of violent gang behavior in the San Jose Area/South San 
Francisco Area.  The San Jose Police started a photo MUG book of strictly
Asian convicts, ex-cons, and gang members.  The 'mainstream' cried 
discrimination.  This should be justifiable under your rule #3 against
criminals, but you see, it's still discrimination based on race.  

Not to sound like a total racist/facist/brute, but I almost like 
the Japanese system of discrimination against gaijin, Chuugokujin,
Kankokujin, etc, because it challenges foreigners to exceed the 
expectations and prejudices of the Japanese, and it challenges us as 
a group.  The Japanese system is almost like a societal contract; A 
race gets no acceptance in society until it proves it's moral worth. 
It forces the group in question to take up responsibility for correcting
flaws.  Of course the innocent suffer, but this speeds up the correction
process.  Example of that working in the US is Iowa-State Lu Gang blew 
away his adviser, department chair, rival student, asst. Dean and then
committed jisatsu.  The entire Chinese community frowned upon this incident,
published articles of apology, hosted talk shows, etc, all which in 
essence showed that the Chinese were very worried about 'losing face' 
and therefore initiated internal steps to mitigate any possible few
occurences.  A good column was published in U. of Mich. Ann Arbor's
paper on Chinese societal responsibility for the Lu Gang incident.

  >Somewhere you decided that Americans and South Africans discriminate
  >against blacks only because they are black. Not at all. They go
  >through the same mental process you outlined above:
   [stuff deleted on how blacks to bad things which warrant discrim.]

What mental process?  The whites saw they had technical superiority over
the blacks and found economic interests in their exploitation.
Discrimination against the blacks occurred after the blacks rebelled.
The same thing happened to the Native American Indians.  In history,
'Might' has made it right (and ripe) for economic exploitation.

  >Just when exactly did you decide that Americans did it any differently
  >than Japanese do it? How is it that the one extra step of
  >discriminating against a race based on a perceived characteristic
  >somehow makes it easier for you to accept?

Perhaps, it is because of the American Military at Yokosuka, Okinawa,
and other big US guns back up their Embassy offices, that the Japanese
feel somewhat intimidated in trying to convict and extradite US criminals.
It's easier just to hang up the 'the no gaijin' sign.  It's not so much
that the Japanese are racist, (which they are), but rather, the
gaijin-tachi ruined it by not exhibiting as a group, proper and
acceptable behavior in a foreign land.  As a consequence, you will
always be a foreigner in Japan because you do not accept their ways,
and as a group, behave in a way more favourable than their
expectations.

  >This is, by the way, the definitive argument against your stand.
  >Check. Mate in two moves.

Arrogance, of which I too am guilty. In Japanese culture, we should 
show more humility.  Check-mate in 2 moves...sheeaahhh, saru ga..:-).

Jaa, James
=======================================================================
James C. Liu |    KARAOKE Addict!     Karaoke: You're the STAR!!!!    |
             |    Wanna go? Need someone who sings worse than you do? |
             |    Know about a cool karaoke bar? send e-mail          |
=======================================================================