From: masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda)
Subject: More on "gaijin" (was Re: Please give your opinions...)
Organization: Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:00:55 GMT

In article <HARKCOM.92Nov16113149@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp> harkcom@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp (Alton Harkcom) writes:
>In article <BxKuFv.CHF@ncifcrf.gov> masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov
>   (Michiaki Masuda) writes:
>
> =}The word by itself does not convey any concept of inferiority nor
> =}superiority.
>
>   I agree.  But the poster to whom you were replying was discussing the
>emotional (stereotypical) baggage associated with the word.

   Actually, the poster to whom I was reponding was more specific by 
mentioning that a racially discriminative word "nigger" is not 
always used to offend or insult someone but also used in a friendly
manner and that "nigger", even in a friendly context, still has an inherent
and unavoidable connotation of "member of an inferior race." The question
that the poster asked was if this is true for "gaijin", too.
 
>  The word
>gaijin can (and sometimes is) used to refer to non-Japanese as inferior.

   It is often used to refer to non-Japanese as superior.
(e.g., Gaijin complex). 

>And the word gaijin is often used to refer to a stereotyped group
>(caucasians) which are considered to be inferior.  The statement "gaijin
>can't speak Japanese because it is too difficult" is one example of this
>racist "baggage".

   In his exapmle, "gaijin" can be replaced by "Amerika-jin", 
"Igirisu-jin", "Chuugoku-jin", etc. Nothing is so special about "gaijin."

>   I recently have started trying to ignore concentrating on the words
>used and spending more time addressing the intent of the statements
>made.  I've had mixed results but I feel this is the best way to
>communicate...

   This is a smart choice especially when you communicate in Japanese.

   Recently, I read a book "Amerika to Nippon" written by Reona "Leo" Ezaki 
(Physicist, Nobel Laureate). In comparing the American society and the 
Japanese society, he cites a data which shows that in the US, 60 % of
information is transmitted by way of the language whereas only 16 %
is conveyed via words in Japan. In other words, you can understand only
16 % of speaker's intention in Japan if you stick to the literal meaning 
of spoken words. This seems to be a good estimation. Japanese culture
requires the receiver of the information to be highly imaginative, and
the American culture requires the sender of the information to be
highly specific.

   The concept of political correctness is often a big issue in the US.
It's probably because that in the society where people extract the
information mainly from the meaning of the word, each word should be given
a rigid and clear definition including nuiance and connotation. On the
other hand, political correctness of the usage of words is not
often considered in Japan. The reason seems to me to be that since even a
complete definition of each word could affect the actual information
only by 16 % at most, it is not so useful to restrict and demarcate the 
extent that a single word can cover. In that sense, the fuzziness of the 
Japanese language should be reasonably understandable.

   The recent uprise among non-Japanese against the word "gaijin" is perhaps 
beyond comprehension of many Japanese. We cannot see any point in 
categorizing a word like "gaijin" into a group of derogatory, complimentary
or whatever words without considering the context or the way it's presented.

>    Recipe for dealing with racist remarks: 
>
>	When someone intentionaly makes a rude remark as to the
>	inferiority of some group of people,
.....

     Any good recipe for another type of racist? What if someone makes a
remark as to the superiority of some racial/ethnic group?

--Michiaki
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan