From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: Not a Myth at All
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:21:03 GMT

In article <C03M67.19D@ncifcrf.gov> masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.170152.2165@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>>In article <C00LoL.1Js@ncifcrf.gov> masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec28.200807.5156@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>>>>In article <42855@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> mcovingt@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Maiko Covington) writes:
>
>>Riiight. So shopowners everywhere can discriminate against anyone with whom
>>they have "difficulty communicating". Why, that's not racist at all, is it?
>
>  There are more occasions where people are discriminated based on their
>communication skill than you might think. Would you call TOEFL a racist
>exam?

Uh, no I wouldn't. Language tests (particualrly those designed to be given
to non-native speakers) are not racist. But of course, this STILL doesn't 
address the point.

>  If a tourist who has no command of Japanese cannot receive a service
>because of inability of communication and if he/she still wants to
>enjoy the service there, he/she should be able to ask a tour guide,
>interpreter or whatever for a help.

However, if there is a "No Foreigners" sign, that option is not available. And
someone who DOES speak Japanese, but whose race is non-Asian, still does not
have that option.

>>>>A quick note: in a Japanese class I was taking, one of the students was a 
>>>>68 year-old retiree, who was part of the Occupation of Japan. He says the
>>>>"No foreigners" signs were up almost the same day the forces entered Japan.
>>>>My grandmother-in-law says that "Japanese only" signs were up in Kochi BEFORE
>>>>the occupation troops got there. 
>
>>>   I think that there was a strong antipathy among many Japanese against 
>>>the Occupation Army shortly after WWII. It might be reasonable because
>>>they had been taught that Americans were evil brute. I'd interpret that the
>>>"No foreigners" signs immediately after the war were rather partisan
>>>activities and had a different meaning from that of the similar signs
>>>which might be seen now. 
>
>>Then it hardly seems like they were th eresult of some "bad experience", does
>>it? It would seem, therefore, to be nothing more than racism.
>
>   If having their family/friends/loved ones injured/disabled/killed,
>having their land bombed, and having their life destructed is not a bad 
>experience, you are right. If the French partisans fougth with Germans
>out of racism, you are right.

Excuse me, but how is this at all relevant? Would you then be so "understanding"
were someone to tell you "My grandfather was killed by the Japanese; get out
of my store!"? 

>   I'd rather see emotional hostility against enemies than racism in the 
>"No foreigners" signs under occupation. Obviously, those signs would not
>have helped the shopowners live more easily or their business go more
>smoothly and successfully. You might want to imagine the sentiment which
>made them post those signs in spite of possible disadvantages. 

What you would rather see is not relevant. And all racist businesses, in any
country, suffer the same disadvantage.

>   Someone who picks up every opportunity to connect any thread to the
>Japanese war crimes might say, "Japan was a bad guy in WWII and that
>what they suffered was what they deserved. Therefore, those damages should 
>not be regarded as a bad experience." However, what would you expect
>from ordinary citizens such as an owner of a local tiny grocery store?
>Even though there were quite a few Japanese citizens who appreciated
>America's bringing the war to an end and normalizing the Japanese society, 
>not everyone was a "saint" generous and open-minded enough to give a
>heartwarming welcome to someone who might have killed his/her son.

Fine. So you would not htink it racist at all if someone hassled you because
one of their relatives was killed by the Japanese. However, I would feel that 
to be racist.

>>>>And somehow, I get the feeling you would not be quite so understanding of
>>>>those (eg) white shopowners who would exclude (eg) blacks because "They 
>>>>have a bad reputation". 
>
>>>   I wonder if she has to demonstrate her understanding of what does not 
>>>seem to be a good analogy to the issue under discussion.
>
>>Really? The only difference is that one incident occurs in Japan, while the
>>other might occur here in the US. Obviously, we would call the US incident 
>>"racist". Please explain why the incident in Japan would NOT be racist.
>
>   Since you admitted that the incident that you used as an example is the
>one in the US, I might be able to point out several other differences.
>
>   Your example is a discrimination of American citizens by another group
>of American citizens. Their nationality, their language and their culture

News alert: there ARE non-American blacks here.

>(American culture in a broad meaning) should be the same. On the other
>hand, gaijin are more foreign to Japanese than, say, Afro-Americans are
>to, say, white Americans. In other words, in the US, a different race
>does not necessarily mean different language, different life style or
>different value system, whereas in Japan, a different race has been
>meaning other attached differences more often than not. For example,   
>to those shopowners who posted a "gaijin okotowari" sign, a different
>race might have meant a different attitude or behavior after being drunk 
>in "gaijin no heitai-san."

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

>   In the US, where political correctness in the racial problem is 
>overwhelmingly emphasized (sometimes even to an unnecessarily degree to my 
>"Japanese" eyes), any discrimination could be associated with racism,
>and there are some people who call any discrimination that they encounter
>as "racism." It is true that Japanese people tend to discriminate
>"foreignness" either positively or negatively and often express xenophobic
>attitude and that the outcome of this attitude occasionally constitutes
>a superficial resemblance to the "American racism", it would be probably 
>a vain effort to define discrimination in the US and in Japan both
>as "racism" in the same meaning.

I see. Again, Japanese racism is a unique kinda thing. 

>   I'm not saying that "gaijin okotowari" is an ideal situation. However,
>if someone tries to correct the situation by calling it as "racism"
>("jinshu sabetsu" in Japanese), he/she would have to take a longer way
>to go.  

???

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.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan