From: masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda)
Subject: Re: Not a Myth at All
Organization: Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:36:27 GMT

In article <HARKCOM.93Jan6095158@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp> harkcom@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp (Alton Harkcom) writes:

>Maybe I can ask a few question that will help clear this up a bit...

  I'm afraid that you jumped into a thread that developed while you were
away on vacation and that you missed some points that were stated before
by other netters including Maiko-san and Fester-san.
I hope answers to your questions will help clear up your misunderstandings.

>   If someone were so concerned with their service that they were
>worried as to whether or not they could satisfy their customer,
>wouldn't they have prepared to deal with such situations (such as
>learning English).  Wouldn't it be someone who was not concerned
>mainly with service who would turn away customers based on race?

   If they have a foreign customer, say, once in three years, I wonder if
it gives a good motivation for them to learn English. If a shopowner has
to be prepared to deal with such situations, he should learn not only
English but also Chinese, Korean, French, German, etc. as well.

   The original point made was that mastering basic Japanese might be helpful
for a foreigner to decrease the unpleasant experiences. 

>   Aren't the results of the TOEFL interpreted soley on the answers
>given and not on the race of the individual giving the answers?
>Isn't it possible for members of any race to take the TOEFL?
>Isn't the main point of the exam to test the English ability of
>non-native speakers regardless of race?

   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.

> =}   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.

>   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.

> =}You might want to imagine the sentiment which
> =}made them post those signs in spite of possible disadvantages.

>   Since it was more popular to be anti-US after the war, wouldn't
>there be more advantages to racist practices?

  It was more popular to be anti-US? Which country are you talking about?

>  Aren't non-racist
>practices usually more disadvantageous when not practiced by the
>majority?

  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. 

> =}   Someone who picks up every opportunity to connect any thread to the
> =}Japanese war crimes might say,

>   Wasn't it your post which tried to tie post-war racism to US war
>crimes?  Isn't it a bit strange to do something and then try to point
>out what is wrong with doing such a thing?

   When did I say that what the US did during WWII was war crimes?
I'd appreciate it if you could stop putting your words into my mouth.
In addition, I am not understanding that there was a "post-war racism."
As I stated previously, it appears to me more like a resistance against
enemy who happened to be American.

>   Just as it is pointless to argue that the Japanese deserved what
>they got, it is pointless to argue that foreigners deserve the racist
>shopkeepers practices...

   When did I say foreigners deserve what they encountered. What I said was
that anti-US feeling among some Japanese immediately after WWII had been
an understandable reaction. It was just as understandable as the reaction
of ordinary citizens in the US after Pearl Harbor. 

>   What about examples of things like discrimination against Mexicans
>in California?  Wasn't such racism rationalized as 'language' (cultural)
>differences?

  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. 
  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.

>   Do any of these racist practices not get called racist by even the
>Japanese media and people?

>   Does the example given by Mr. Fester make more sense now?  Does the
>mere fact that the incident occured in Japan rather than the US excuse
>the incident from being racist even though it was discrimination based
>only on race?

   As I already mentioned several times, I am not trying to excuse or
justify the unreasonable treatment of foreigners in Japan. I'm trying
to explain the background mentality or social factors (e.g., racial
homogeneity) in Japan to people like you who cannot but believe that the
discrimination in Japan is only on race. If that is the case, how would 
it be possible to explain why some foreigners are more discriminated than
others? Is it just that they are equally discriminated, but some are
more sensitive than others?

>   Does a discussion on a non-existent (or never experienced) misuse
>of a term excuse a practice which is properly defined by that term?

   Sorry, I didn't get the point on this.

>   Aren't we all mature enough to know that trying to rationalize racism
>by arguments like "bad experience", "cultural differences" or "what is
>racism?" are merely forms of denial?

   I've been trying to be mature in a different way. I just thought that
in order for us to correct the unfavorable situation in Japan which is
regarded as "racism", it was essential to analyze why that's happening.
If you all prefer the maturity to discuss only the outcome without looking
at the basis which it is derived from, I'd just shut up my mouth. 

>   When the onsens and sentos were putting up the "no foreigners"
>('gaijin dame'/'gaijin okotowari') signs, weren't the popular terms
>used by the Japanese media for referring to such events "jinshuu
>sabetu", "racism" and such?

  I am not the best person to answer this question because I don't remember
seeing any media report on this particular matter (onsens & sentos) when I 
was in Japan.

  In the US, I saw a Japanese TV program that reported the difficulties
for a foreigner to find an apartment in Japan. As far as I remember, they
used the term, "gaijin sabetsu" but not "jinshu sabetsu."

>  If one does not feel that these were
>the popular terms then why was the news full of reporters using such
>terms to describe the situation?

  Would you care to write an inquiry letter to the reporters?
 
>   I will be on vacation from 12/18 - 12/27 and will not be able to
>read email during that time.  My company will be on vacation from
>12/29 - 1/4 and our news and mail servers will be down during that time...
>
>   Sorry for the inconvenience...

  No, no, not at all. We've been doing just fine B-).

--Michiaki

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?