From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: Not a Myth at All
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:58:27 GMT

In article <C0G98r.5I1@ncifcrf.gov> masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda) writes:
>In article <HARKCOM.93Jan6095158@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp> harkcom@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp (Alton Harkcom) writes:
>
>>   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.

Under the conditions you mention, there is certainly NO motivation for excluding
such customers (no motive that is not racist).

>>   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.

Again, how is it analagous? You do not need to take a language test to enter
a shop.

>>   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.

Also, B H Chamberlain makes reference to "No Foreigners" signs in his book,
written in 1904. Britain and Japan were allies at the time.

>>  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. 

However, the signs forbidding foreigners went up almost immediately. Sure
looks racist (BTW, our pediatrician was part of the occupation forces. He 
says he was able to enter those places with no problem. He didn't speak 
much Japanese at the time).

>> =}   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.

I see. Again, perfectly understandable, and not really racism at all, when 
directed properly.

>>   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. 

Yet that's how you labelled the TOEFL.

>  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.

News flash: English IS the official language of all the United States. Has 
been since its inception.

>>   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?

Hmm. So those naturalized Japanese citizens of non-Asian background are not
victims of racism at all, but of nationalism (even if they are Japanese.)

>>   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?

>>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.

I have seen such reports, and there was an article aobut it in the Asahi
Shimbun about 6 -7 months ago. 

>  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?

Uh, logic break here, Masuda. Why should HE write the letter, when it is YOU
who think they are misusing the word?
 
>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?

Not at all hard to find.

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.