From: tvp@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Tad Perry)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan
Subject: Re: Not a Myth at All
Date: 9 Jan 93 22:53:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: gibdo.1993Jan09.221919.12317
Organization: unaffiliated
NNTP-Posting-Host: gibdo.engr.washington.edu

In article <C0LuA2.EL8@ncifcrf.gov> masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.212916.6558@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>>What, if anything, does it have to do with racism? Unless you mean there may
>>be a "race" of tattoed people somewhere.
>
>  "Some gaijin caused trouble at the bar." -> "Gaijin cause trouble." ->
>"Gaijin okotowari."
>
>  "Some people with irezumi caused trouble at the bar." -> "People with
>irezumi cause trouble." -> "Irezumi okotowari."
>
> These two mental processes look analogous.

They are highly analogous. But the arrows in one case are assigning
characteristics to a race. That's bad. In the other case they are
assigning characteristics to a group of tattoed people. Has nothing to
do with race. Nothing wrong with that.

You 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. It is perfectly legal to discriminate against a smoker.
Don't come into a discussion on racism trying to say that because
discrimination against smokers is okay, discrimination against races
is also okay.

2. Dumb people. It is perfectly legal to give what amount to
intelligence tests in employing people and accepting them to public
and private learning institutions. Most government jobs require a
test. All universities do.

3. Criminals. It is perfectly legal to discriminate against criminals.
Their right to vote is taken away. Any potential employer is allowed
not to hire you based on your criminal record. Shop owners are allowed
to tell you to get out.

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.

You 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. If someone assigns characteristics to a
race (even characteristics that may be identical to yakuza against
whom discrimination is generally allowed) and then uses those
characteristics as the basis for discrimination, then that too is
racism. That's it. It's that simple.

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:

  bad experiences, or rumoured bad experiences, with blacks ->
  blacks have nasty characteristic(s) a, b, c,... -> therefore
  I don't want blacks living next to me or working for me.

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?

This is, by the way, the definitive argument against your stand.
Check. Mate in two moves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tad Perry      Internet:    tvp@gibdo.engr.washington.edu
               CompuServe:  70402,3020
               NIFTY-Serve: GBG01266
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan