NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/culture/japan/12978

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 4.7 KB | 98 lines

Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan
Path: sparky!uunet!island!fester
From: [e-mail] (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: Not a Myth at All
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (The Usenet mail target)
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:01:52 GMT
Lines: 86

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michiaki Masuda) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Fester) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Maiko Covington) writes:
>>>Ah... racism again. ^_^ Hmmm... about the situation of 'Japanese
>>>only' signs around Yokosuka and the embassies... It IS a form of
>>>discriminization based on your race - if you have blond hair and
>>>blue eyes, you are looked upon disfavorably.

>  If you are saying this seriously, Maiko-san, I'm afraid that you are
>incorrectly discouraging people with blond hair and blue eyes. We don't
>have even blond jokes in Japan.

>>> BUT! I think in some
>>>ways it is just the easiest way for the owners of these
>>>establishments to avoid past experiences of foreigners acting bloody
>>>rude in their shops.

>>Could not establishments in the US therefore be equally excused for a policy
>>of "We had a problem with a few blacks/latinos/Asians/whites/people wearing
>>leather jackets in the past, so it is simpler for us to exclude all of them,
>>rather than targetting those misbehaving indiviuals"?

>  I guess "No Leather Jackets Allowed" would do B-).

>>> I do NOT mean to flame the military or
>>>government workers (heck, my father is military) but I must admit
>>>that I HAVE seen a lot of base workers misbehaving around the
>>>Yokosuka area. Since Japan is a more or less racially homogeneous
>>>place, they quickly make the leap that "foreign looks like those
>>>guys that had the brawl in here last week, so we won't let 'em in
>>>just to be safe".
>>>    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?

>>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.

>>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.

Mike
--
Disclaimer - These opinions are not so much opinions, as pearls of wisdom. Any-
one disagreeing is either a) a snivelling, whining, mentally deficient, weak
willed, inconsequential, namby pamby tool of some vaguely defined conspiracy,
or b) my wife.