From: masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda)
Subject: Re: Not a Myth at All
Organization: Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:46:55 GMT

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:

>>>>	I think that one can get around this by demonstrating some
>>>>Japanese ability or dressing nice, or whatever. Actually, I feel

>>>However, what if you are a tourist and have no Japanese ability? Is it
>>>therefore alright for this afore-mentioned shopowner to discriminate?

>>   This is a situation different from that of military servicemen who
>>HAVE TO LIVE in Japan.
>> 
>>   Probably, the tourist would not expect that his/her lack of
>>communication skill allows him/her to have every opportunity to enjoy
>>everything that Japanese-speaking people can enjoy.
>>
>>   If there's no reliable way of communication, it would be inevitable 
>>for a shopowner to show the tourist an attitude different from that
>>to a Japanese-speaking customer. Fear? Perplex? Frustration? Or despair?
>>In some cases, the service may not be offered when the owner cannot
>>be sure if he/she can satisfy the customer.

>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?

  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.

>>>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.

   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. 

   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.

>>>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
(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."

   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'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.  

--Michiaki
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan,alt.sex,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american,sci.electronics,misc.consumers,misc.education,misc.entrepreneurs