Gregory Clark Discussion Group Archive

Dear Dr. Clark:

I read with interest your Dec. 21 Japan Times article, "Price of

exclusivity too high". I was particularly intrigued by the following

section in your article:

"The other problem is more cultural, and understandable. Relative

honesty and the lack of precautions against violent or calculated

crime makes Japan a paradise for criminally minded foreigners. Japan

does not need these people. Japan is also right to fear integration

problems. Large areas of its society are vulnerable not just to

foreigner crime but also the cultural insensitivities foreigners can

inflict so carelessly. The would-be do-gooders who encourage court

cases against Japanese shopkeepers, bathhouse owners or club managers

who have suffered bad foreigner behavior and want to restrict foreign

customers as a result are part of this insensitivity problem."

I would be interested in knowing more of your thoughts regarding

"criminally minded foreigners". Who would you define as these people,

and how should Japan determine who such foreigners are? What percentage

of the foreigner population do you believe that such "criminally minded

foreigners" represent amongst the foreigner community in Japan as a

whole, and from "criminally minded Japanese"?

I am also interested in the last two sentences of this paragraph

regarding the "cultural insensitivities" of foreigners and "would-be

do-gooders" who have filed court cases against discriminatory practices

in Japan. It seems that you are suggesting that racially discriminatory

practices on the part of Japanese merchants should not be challenged --

and are even justified -- and that those who do challenge such policies

are contributing to an "insensitivity problem". I would be grateful if

you could further clarify your statements in this regard, specifically

on how those fighting racial discrimination are part of the "problem"

that you describe, and how this problem, in your view, is manifested as

"cultural insensitivity".

Thank you in advance,

Steve Silver

Dear Steve Silver: Criminally minded foreigners are mainly the not

inconsiderable number of Chinese and Koreans who come here deliberately

to make money from crime.

Re question 2: If I had had my walls and machines badly damaged by

drunken Russian seamen entering my bathhouse (God only knows what they

are doing once they get into the bath) I too would want to place a ban

on foreigners, particularly if I was losing my Japanese customers as a

result.

To be running court cases against these bathhouse owners in this

admirably non-litigous society, and in the process taking advantage of

the Japanese weakness to accusations of not being internationally

minded, is the worst kind of do-gooderism. .

I also belong to the school that says if a shop-keeper does not like

foreigners, I am glad if puts out a sign to that effect so that I can

know in advance and take my business elsewhere.

[email protected] writes:

>Thank you for your clarification. However, please allow me to comment

>on several of your statements, specifically the following:

>"Criminally minded foreigners are mainly the not inconsiderable number

>of Chinese and Koreans who come here deliberately to make money from

>crime."

>First, what do you define as "foreigners"? Anyone with a Alien

>Registration card who is not a Japanese citizen? Anyone who wasn't born

>in Japan? Someone who doesn't have "Japanese blood"?

A strange question. A foreigner is someone who is not Japanese, period.

>Secondly, what data do you have to back up this statement?

Unless you live on another planet you must be aware of the organised

Chinese gangs engaged in massive theft and breakins, often with severe

injury, and the organised Korean pickpocket gangs.

>An

>overwhelming majority of crime in Japan -- over 97% -- is committed by

>Japanese, and this number has remained constant over the past decade.

>In March of this year, the National Police Agency released crime

>statistics which showed that foreigners made up 2.3% out of 380,000

>people held for criminal offenses in 2003.

Most Japanese crime is petty stuff. The foreigners are more expert and

professional, and therefore a much more serious problem. Determination to

ignore this problem fuels nationalist anti-foreign activities. .

>In addition, these numbers

>have remained at about 2% every year for the last decade. Furthermore,

>according to statistics provided by the Justice Ministry, the number of

>illegal aliens has dropped by 80,000 in the last decade, and of the

>8,700 foreigners who were held for criminal offenses last year, only

>17% entered Japan illegally or overstayed their visas. That means that

>out of the 380,000 people that were held for crimes, less than 1,500 of

>them were committed by illegal aliens. Out of a population of 130

>million, that hardly seems like a "not inconsiderable" number.

You really are on another planet. Of course most of the crime gang people

have visas - either short term or forged. Without visas they could easily

be picked up and sent home. The numbers coming in illegally ie smuggled

in, are by necessity small. The low crime rate among the large numbers of

visa overstayers was precisely the topic of my article. Did you read it?

>"To be running court cases against these bathhouse owners in this

>admirably non-litigous society, and in the process taking advantage of

>the Japanese weakness to accusations of not being internationally

>minded, is the worst kind of do-gooderism."

>First, I'd like to examine what you mean by "admirably non-litigous".

>Upon what basis do you believe that Japanese society is non-litigous,

>and why do you believe this is admirable? Is it therefore not admirable

>to file suit against a party that has broken the law?

If you think it is good for people to be sueing each , often over

frivolous matters as in the US, then great. Others have a different view.

>Second, I'd like to know more about your statement that running court

>cases is "taking advantage of the Japanese weakness to accusations of

>not being internationally minded". What is this "weakness", and why do

>you feel that court cases take advantage of this weakness? In addition,

>do you feel that these accusations are unjustified?

Do you know the details of those cases? If you did you would know what I

mean.

>Also, what do you mean by "do-gooderism"? You state: "... If a

>shopkeeper does not like foreigners, I am glad if [she/he] puts out a

>sign to that effect so that I can know in advance and take my business

>elsewhere." By extension, would you find acceptable the practices

>against African-Americans by merchants and Jim Crow laws in much of the

>American South that existed forty years ago -- for example, the

>ubiquitous "Whites Only" signs that were in stores, lunch counters, and

>many other establishments?

That was a case of an entire segment of a society discriminating against

another segment. Not good. I was referring to the very few racist

Japanese who discriminate not because they have suffered from foreigners

but simply because they dislike them. I would prefer to avoid these

people.

>"If I had had my walls and machines badly damaged by drunken Russian

>seamen entering my bathhouse (God only knows what they are doing once

>they get into the bath) I too would want to place a ban on foreigners,

>particularly if I was losing my Japanese customers as a result."

>In Monbetsu, there were about 8,500 Russians who visited in 2003. Of

>those, there were about 50 complaints about Russians filed with police,

>and nine Russians were arrested for theft, compared with 263 Japanese

>(New York Times, April 2004). Do you have any data that shows that

>Russians are more prone to cause damage to bathhouses than Japanese?

The data you give speaks for itself. You should also read the internet

account of damage to bathhouses posted by none other than the chief

do-gooder.

>Furthermore, bathhouses have banned not just Russians, but all

>foreign-looking persons, even those who are naturalized Japanese

>citizens.

>To claim you are "glad" of the fact that merchants put

>discriminatory warning signs in front of doors

I was referring the racist types, to whom I am gald not to give business.

>only works to further

>the existing discrimination that exists against Koreans, Chinese,

>burakamin, and the many other minorities living and working in Japan.

>Banning individuals from establishments or from employment based on

>ethnicity or nationality sends a clear signal that it is acceptable -

>even justified -- to judge individuals based on their physical

>characteristics or place of origin, and, therefore, to deny them the

>same rights and privileges as those afforded to the rest of society. It

>has no place in a modern democratic nation.

Various forms of discrimination are going on in modern democracies every

day. An employer who did not discriminate on the basis of suitability

would soon be out of businesss.

OUten the only clue as to suitability is the class or group to which the

individual belongs.For example, in my part of Japan people are reluctant

to employ surfies. Bad luck for those surfies who in fact are suitable.

But the employer often has no other criterion to guide him. Try employing

a few people yourself and you will find out. niversities discriminate

on the basis of alleged academic ability. Governments discriminate with

their visa policies. EG Japan has decided that on average Chinese are more

likely that other nationalities to cause trouble in Japan and restricts

visa issuance to all Chinese. TheOnce again bad luck for the good Chinese

who are refused, but is the Japanese government supposed to devote

enormous manpower to checking out the credentials of every Chinese who

wants a visa? US is even worse in this respect, singling out certain

nationalities for non-visa issuance. Do you protest any of this?

I find most alarming the lack of realism amongst do-gooders. Meanwhile

they ignore the much larger problems here in Japan, eg rising militarism,

that I and a few others are left to cope with.

>teve Silver

Gregory Clark

Head, Research Japan Office

S603 Ark Hills Executive Tower

1-14-5 Akasaka

Minato-ku, Tokyo

107-0052

Tel: 03-3586-4147

Fax: 03-3586-4148

www.gregoryclark.net

www.gregoryclark.net/nakadaki

>> First, what do you define as "foreigners"? Anyone with a Alien

>> Registration card who is not a Japanese citizen? Anyone who wasn't born

>> in Japan? Someone who doesn't have "Japanese blood"?

> A strange question. A foreigner is someone who is not Japanese, period.

I'm afraid I don't quite see how a question seeking to clarify a vague statement is "strange". There are many definitions of the term "Japanese". Do you define a "Japanese" as one who is a citizen of the Japanese nation? One who is from a family who has been living in Japan four generations, but is not a Japanese citizen? An American citizen who is ethnically Japanese but has never been to Japan? Someone who is not ethnically Japanese but became a naturalized citizen? I think a clarification of the terms "Japanese" and "foreigner" would be prudent to this discussion.

>> Secondly, what data do you have to back up this statement?

> Unless you live on another planet you must be aware of the organised

> Chinese gangs engaged in massive theft and breakins, often with severe

> injury, and the organised Korean pickpocket gangs.

What data do you have with regard to the percentage of crime that is committed by "Chinese gangs" and "Korean pickpocket gangs" relative to crime in Japan as a whole?

>> An

>> overwhelming majority of crime in Japan -- over 97% -- is committed by

>> Japanese, and this number has remained constant over the past decade.

>> In March of this year, the National Police Agency released crime

>> statistics which showed that foreigners made up 2.3% out of 380,000

>> people held for criminal offenses in 2003.

> Most Japanese crime is petty stuff. The foreigners are more expert and

> professional, and therefore a much more serious problem. Determination to

> ignore this problem fuels nationalist anti-foreign activities.

What data do you have to support your assertion that most Japanese crime is "petty stuff", or that "foreigners are more expert and professional"? Furthermore, I don't understand the logic you employ in determining that ignoring this "problem" is the cause of anti-foreign activities. It would seem more logical to me that hyped-up reporting of foreign crime by the media along with the apologists for Japanese discrimination and xenophobia are the more likely causes for the escalation of such activities.

>> In addition, these numbers

>> have remained at about 2% every year for the last decade. Furthermore,

>> according to statistics provided by the Justice Ministry, the number of

>> illegal aliens has dropped by 80,000 in the last decade, and of the

>> 8,700 foreigners who were held for criminal offenses last year, only

>> 17% entered Japan illegally or overstayed their visas. That means that

>> out of the 380,000 people that were held for crimes, less than 1,500 of

>> them were committed by illegal aliens. Out of a population of 130

>> million, that hardly seems like a "not inconsiderable" number.

> You really are on another planet.

The description of this discussion group contains the statement, "Comments on articles and questions to the author are welcome." Is this usually how you address others who attempt to engage you in discussion and debate? If so, it doesn't seem like much of a welcoming to me.

> Of course most of the crime gang people

> have visas - either short term or forged.

Again, what data do you cite to support this?

>> First, I'd like to examine what you mean by "admirably non-litigous".

>> Upon what basis do you believe that Japanese society is non-litigous,

>> and why do you believe this is admirable? Is it therefore not admirable

>> to file suit against a party that has broken the law?

> If you think it is good for people to be sueing each , often over

> frivolous matters as in the US, then great.

Is racial discrimination a frivolous matter to you?

> Others have a different view.

What precisely is your view? That racial discrimination should be tolerated? That those who break the law should not be held accountable?

>> Second, I'd like to know more about your statement that running court

>> cases is "taking advantage of the Japanese weakness to accusations of

>> not being internationally minded". What is this "weakness", and why do

>> you feel that court cases take advantage of this weakness? In addition,

>> do you feel that these accusations are unjustified?

> Do you know the details of those cases? If you did you would know what I

> mean.

I do know the details, and I don't know what you mean. For the benefit of our discussion, why don't you explain?

>> Also, what do you mean by "do-gooderism"? You state: "... If a

>> shopkeeper does not like foreigners, I am glad if [she/he] puts out a

>> sign to that effect so that I can know in advance and take my business

>> elsewhere." By extension, would you find acceptable the practices

>> against African-Americans by merchants and Jim Crow laws in much of the

>> American South that existed forty years ago -- for example, the

>> ubiquitous "Whites Only" signs that were in stores, lunch counters, and

>> many other establishments?

> That was a case of an entire segment of a society discriminating against

> another segment. Not good.

Does discrimination have to get to a certain breaking point when taking action against it is justifiable? If so, what would that be, how would it be determined, and who would determine it?

> I was referring to the very few racist

> Japanese who discriminate not because they have suffered from foreigners

> but simply because they dislike them. I would prefer to avoid these

> people.

It seems as though you are making a distinction between those who discriminate "because they have suffered" and those who do so "simply because they dislike" certain racial or ethnic groups. Is one form of racism more acceptable than another?

>> In Monbetsu, there were about 8,500 Russians who visited in 2003. Of

>> those, there were about 50 complaints about Russians filed with police,

>> and nine Russians were arrested for theft, compared with 263 Japanese

>> (New York Times, April 2004). Do you have any data that shows that

>> Russians are more prone to cause damage to bathhouses than Japanese?

> The data you give speaks for itself. You should also read the internet

> account of damage to bathhouses posted by none other than the chief

> do-gooder.

Is damage to bathhouses is justification for racial discrimination? What exactly does a "chief do-gooder" do? Is there a job description for that? Do you consider anyone who fights racial discrimination a "do-gooder"? What is your definition of a "do-gooder"?

>> Furthermore, bathhouses have banned not just Russians, but all

>> foreign-looking persons, even those who are naturalized Japanese

>> citizens.

>> To claim you are "glad" of the fact that merchants put

>> discriminatory warning signs in front of doors

> I was referring the racist types, to whom I am gald not to give business.

Therefore, in your view, it should be acceptable and legal for bathhouses to prohibit entry based on racial or ethnic characteristics?

> Various forms of discrimination are going on in modern democracies every

> day.

Does that mean it should be tolerated in a modern democracy as well?

> An employer who did not discriminate on the basis of suitability

> would soon be out of businesss.

> OUten the only clue as to suitability is the class or group to which the

> individual belongs.

So what you are saying is that racial/ethnic characteristics are part of this "basis of suitability" and are therefore legitimate factors to take into account when considering one's job qualifications?

> For example, in my part of Japan people are reluctant

> to employ surfies. Bad luck for those surfies who in fact are suitable.

> But the employer often has no other criterion to guide him.

"Him"? Are there no female employers?

> Try employing

> a few people yourself and you will find out. niversities discriminate

> on the basis of alleged academic ability.

"Alleged academic ability" -- could you define that term, and how universities should go about making decisions with regard to this? Do they take one's racial or ethnic group into consideration? Do you find that acceptable?

> I find most alarming the lack of realism amongst do-gooders. Meanwhile

> they ignore the much larger problems here in Japan, eg rising militarism,

> that I and a few others are left to cope with.

Again I think a definition of the term "do-gooder" would be helpful. Furthermore, what is this "lack of realism"? Is justice an unrealistic goal for you? Your statements deplore the actions taken by the "do-gooders", yet fail to express similar concerns for underlying causes which led to these actions being taken. Your words lament the increasing nationalism and xenophobia you observe in this nation, yet criticize those who fight to end its manifestation in the form of racial prejudice and discrimination. I find that accepting, even defending such discrimination is much more alarming to me.

One point at a time.

Of course I know about yakuza. But most of their crime is extortion,

prostitution etc. Usually it does not involve big amounts or serious

violence (unless against other yakuza). Chinese criminals are much more

prone to use violence (check out the scene in Hongkong if you do not

believe me), and to go for big amounts.

A common pattern is for the yakuza to tell them of the crime

opportunities, and leave them (the Chinese) to do the dirty work.

In the total statistics for Japanese crime, there is some bad stuff. But

most of the stats simply total up what I call petty crime - drunken

driving, small breakins, punch-ups etc - as in any society.

The stats for foreign crime are for more serious stuff. Foreigners are

less involved in the daily life and are therefore less likely to be

involved in small scale skirmishes.

Re foreign crime, almost daily there are reports of serious breakins, with

people terrorised into handing over large sums to people of Asian looks

and speaking bad Japanese. Are you not aware of this?

Just watch the TV here and you will be more aware.If not aware, I am not

surprised. Most gaijin here live bottled up in their own little world,

preoccupied with their pet peeves.

Frankly I am surprised that the media do not make more of this foreign

crime problem. If the same was happening in our own societies there would

be outrage.

> Of course I know about yakuza. But most of their crime is extortion,

> prostitution etc.

Do you consider extortion, prostitution, and sexual servitude to be "petty crimes"?

> Usually it does not involve big amounts or serious

> violence (unless against other yakuza). Chinese criminals are much more

> prone to use violence (check out the scene in Hongkong if you do not

> believe me), and to go for big amounts.

What data are you using as the basis for these claims?

> A common pattern is for the yakuza to tell them of the crime

> opportunities, and leave them (the Chinese) to do the dirty work.

Again, do you have data to support this?

> In the total statistics for Japanese crime, there is some bad stuff. But

> most of the stats simply total up what I call petty crime - drunken

> driving, small breakins, punch-ups etc - as in any society.

> The stats for foreign crime are for more serious stuff.

What are these "stats"? Can you cite them for us?

> Foreigners are

> less involved in the daily life and are therefore less likely to be

> involved in small scale skirmishes.

What evidence or data do you have to support this assertion?

> Re foreign crime, almost daily there are reports of serious breakins, with

> people terrorised into handing over large sums to people of Asian looks

> and speaking bad Japanese. Are you not aware of this?

Could you provide data to support that these "daily" reports are representative of the percentage of such crimes as a whole rather than media hype?

> Just watch the TV here and you will be more aware.

Do you believe that the Japanese television media provides an accurate or non-biased assessment of foreign-based crime in Japan? Wouldn't it be more accurate to look at the statistics themselves rather than how the media reports them?

> If not aware, I am not

> surprised. Most gaijin here live bottled up in their own little world,

> preoccupied with their pet peeves.

Upon what basis do you make this statement? Do you feel that racial discrimination is a "pet peeve"?

> Frankly I am surprised that the media do not make more of this foreign

> crime problem. If the same was happening in our own societies there would

> be outrage.

In your view, is the media underreporting foreign crime? If so, what data do you have to support this assertion?

You have made various claims with regard to the nature of foreign crime, the nature of media reportage of foreign crime, the nature of Japanese crime, and the nature of how foreigners generally live their daily lives here, yet you have provided no evidence or data to support any of these claims. I believe your arguments would perhaps be more effective if you cited some data to support them.

Steve

Dear Steve: The answers to your questions are:

One: Use commonsense, and if you live in Japan keep your eyes and ears

open.

Two: Stop quibbling

and Three: See my previous posts.

> One: Use commonsense

Are those who disagree with you not using common sense?

> and if you live in Japan keep your eyes and ears

> open.

That didn't answer any of the questions I posed, and is merely a dismissive comment.

> Two: Stop quibbling

Are those who challenge your views or ask you for data to support your allegations "quibbling"? Again, this is another dismissive comment.

> and Three: See my previous posts.

You provided no data to substantiate your claims in any of your posts.

If you are willing to write opinion pieces for major newspapers, then you should be willing to engage in rational debate and discussion of what you write. Instead of becoming defensive, it would be beneficial if you would provide data to support your arguments, rather than being condescending or contemptuous of those who challenge your views.

Steve

Hello All;

Sorry to jump in here in the middle of a good debate, just want to add

my two yen worth.

In the Hokkaido Onsen case, the matter wasnt racial discrimination.

The bath owner did not want any "gaijin" in his place. Gaijin is not a

race. Neither is Japanese. He (the owner) did not care what race the

people were that he refused. He just wanted customers that both looked

and were Japanese. A Chinese was barred from the Onsen, a few

caucasians, even a half Japanese half caucasian child! Clearly, the

owner was wrong. Similarly, "Russian" is not a race. If "Russian"

sailors are the problem, then perhaps, just perhaps, the owner may have

been justified in taking action against Russian sailors. Certainly not

against a Japanese man and his family, just because they did not fit

the preconcieved image of what a "Japanese family" should look like.

Unfortunately, there is more going on than being refused a bath. Other

basic services, such as accommodation and medical care, are also denied

to people based purely on the color of their skin. While it is easy to

dismiss and just walk away, saying "I will take my business elsewhere",

in the end that is a selfish approach. Better to do something about

the situation in hopes of improving the quality of life for everyone

living in this country.

My situation, I attempted to rent an apartment from a major fudoya-san.

I speak Japanese tolerably well, have been married (to a Japanese

lady) for 12 years, and have worked at the same company for 5. My

credit in Japan is fine- car loan payed off, credit cards all up to

date, and so on. I even had a guarantor (father in law, life long

Toyota Motor Company executive) who signed the paper. I filled in the

application, hankoed in the right place, payed the full amount of key

money/advance rent up front and in cash. Still, I was refused because

the landlord didnt want a gaijin in his building. What is the solution

in this situation?

But for me, my primary worry is my son. I want to leave him a better

world than the one we live in now. Dont get me wrong, I love living in

Japan for many reasons. Still, call me greedy but I want him to grow up

in a more harmonious and egalitarian society.

As to the issue of crime, if you look within the whole field of "gaijin

crime", you will find that certain groups are responsible for more

crime than others. Hence the issue is largely a useless one to study

as a whole. I have also seen media reports where Japanese criminals

have pretended to be foreigners, speaking broken Japanese in order to

appear gaijin.

Basically, Japan needs to grow up a little.

Thank you all for your time. I am enjoying the conversation here very

much.

Thank you. My understanding is that there was trouble with the Russians.

But since it is hard to decide who is a Russian or not, the owner decided

to put up a sign barring all foreigners. Having done that he would in all

logic be required, or entiteld, to bar all foreigners, including Chinese.

It is also possible the man originally did not want any foreigners in his

bath tub, and the Russians gave him the excuse he wanted. But not wanting

any foreigners in your bath tub is not the necessarily the worst kind of

racial discrimination; some Japanese are entitled to feel uneasy about

foreigners behaving badly in the bath. Or it could even be an instinctive

dislike of having to deal with foreigners in a fairly personal situation.

This goes to the root of all instinctive discrimination arguments. All of

us know people we instinctively like or dislike, and avoid having much to

do with the latter. If an enterprise owner paying taxes and not receiving

government subsidies decides to behave in the same way in running his

enterprise, excluding say even Japanese he did not like, is this

reprehensible.

For reasons related to the bad behavior of Nazi Germany and South Africa,

some discriminations on the basis of race have become considered sinful.

One result is that other, and worse discriminations, some on the basis of

race (eg visa policies), tend to be overlooked. Another result is a lack

of deeper consideration of whether people should be forced to have

dealings with people they dislike or feel uneasy with.

>Unfortunately, there is more going on than being refused a bath. Other

>basic services, such as accommodation and medical care, are also denied

>to people based purely on the color of their skin. While it is easy to

>dismiss and just walk away, saying "I will take my business elsewhere",

>in the end that is a selfish approach. Better to do something about

>the situation in hopes of improving the quality of life for everyone

>living in this country.

Not necessarily. If the sight of foreigners marching into Japan and

taking legal action to force the Japanese to behave in the way the

foreigners want, and the result is inflaming nationalist, anti-foreigner

passions, then the net result is a negative.

I go further and see a Western racial superiority complex behind much of

the clamor to have the Japanese conform to our values.

>My situation, I attempted to rent an apartment from a major fudoya-san.

>I speak Japanese tolerably well, have been married (to a Japanese

>lady) for 12 years, and have worked at the same company for 5. My

>credit in Japan is fine- car loan payed off, credit cards all up to

>date, and so on. I even had a guarantor (father in law, life long

>Toyota Motor Company executive) who signed the paper. I filled in the

>application, hankoed in the right place, payed the full amount of key

>money/advance rent up front and in cash. Still, I was refused because

>the landlord didnt want a gaijin in his building. What is the solution

>in this situation?

Japanese who dislike renting to foreigners often have good reasons, and

experiences sometimes, to back them up. This is yet another case where the

discrimination tends to be on the basis of national culture (a better term

than 'race") because of the problem of deciding in advance who will be or

will not be a 'good' gaijin .

I once had a Japanese landlord who would only rent to gaijin, (a) because

he was able to decide who would 'good' or not, and (b) because he believed

that gaijin were more likely than Japanese to obey rental contracts.

ANyone upset by this kind of anti-Japanese discrimination? Line up to

file a suit and I will give you the landlord's name. But I suspect the

line will not be very long: when the discrimination goes in our favor

there is not much angst. We are back to the Western racial superiority

syndrome.

>But for me, my primary worry is my son. I want to leave him a better

>world than the one we live in now. Dont get me wrong, I love living in

>Japan for many reasons. Still, call me greedy but I want him to grow up

>in a more harmonious and egalitarian society.

Every society has its balance of rights and wrongs. Often some of the

wrongs are the inevitable result of the rights. On balance we both seem

to agree that the rights of Japan are quite attractive. So why not leave

it at that. Or rather, if some of the wrongs can be righted by gentle

admonition rather than aggressive legal action, then go that route

instead.

>As to the issue of crime, if you look within the whole field of "gaijin

>crime", you will find that certain groups are responsible for more

>crime than others. Hence the issue is largely a useless one to study

>as a whole.

That is exactly what I have done - distinguished between the low crime

among visa overstayers and the very high levels of vicious crime by

Chinese and Korean gangs who come here specifically to commit crime. It is

the way the authorities try to confuse the two that upsets me.

> I have also seen media reports where Japanese criminals

>have pretended to be foreigners, speaking broken Japanese in order to

>appear gaijin.

>Basically, Japan needs to grow up a little.

And so do a lot of gaijin here. Stop being so superior.

>Thank you all for your time. I am enjoying the conversation here very

>much.

Me too.

>DS

Gregory Clark

Head, Research Japan Office

S603 Ark Hills Executive Tower

1-14-5 Akasaka

Minato-ku, Tokyo

107-0052

Tel: 03-3586-4147

Fax: 03-3586-4148

www.gregoryclark.net

www.gregoryclark.net/nakadaki

Dear Steve: Let's talk sense. I have made my case and where possible

provided data. Elsewhere I have relied on information readily available

here.

All you do when you disagee with me is to ask for data. Nowhere have you

provided any data whatsoever to back up your own claims. A bit one-sided

I would suggest. (I am surprised you have not asked me to supply data on

the numbers of lock makers who have had to change manufacture in the wake

of attacks by foreign lock-pickers. But I can give you one name - Miwa).

Worse, you did not even realise the meaning of the key piece of data in my

original article, namely the low crime rate among visa-overstayers. Can

you provide me with an explanation for this rather serious mistake? You

give every impression of being someone who having decided that his own

views are correct, feels he does not even have to read, let alone

consider, what the other side presents in a debate.

If the constant demand for data without yourself providing any evidence or

data to rebut is not quibbling, then we need a new definition of the word.

Gregory Clark

> Dear Steve: Let's talk sense. I have made my case and where possible

> provided data. Elsewhere I have relied on information readily available

> here.

You have made assertions to which I have respectfully asked you to support with data, but you have declined to do so. You discuss statistics about foreign crime, but do not cite where you get the statistics from or even what exactly those statistics are. I think it is only prudent, if referring to statistics or other data in support of your arguments, to tell where you got it from. You have continuously made charges about foreign crime, the nature of foreigners, the causes of nationalism, etc. without citing one piece of evidence.

> All you do when you disagee with me is to ask for data. Nowhere have you

> provided any data whatsoever to back up your own claims.

On the contrary. In one of my messages, I cited statistics from the National Police Agency and the Ministry of Justice, as well as numbers provided by the New York Times. I don't recall your having done the same. However, I'd be happy to give you more. In one of your posts, you stated the following:

"Just watch the TV here and you will be more aware. If not aware, I am not

surprised. Most gaijin here live bottled up in their own little world,

preoccupied with their pet peeves. Frankly I am surprised that the media do not make more of this foreign crime problem. If the same was happening in our own societies there would be outrage."

According to the Asahi Shimbun (Dec. 14-15, 2002), the combined crime rate for registered foreigners is less than half that of Japanese, and the overall crime rate is roughly the same for Japanese and the entire foreigner population. However, a study by Nara University found that crimes by foreigners were over four times as likely to be covered in the media than crimes by Japanese. The media is over-reporting foreigner crime by fourfold, not underreporting it, as you claim. The outrage should be directed toward the media, not the foreigners.

> Worse, you did not even realise the meaning of the key piece of data in my

> original article, namely the low crime rate among visa-overstayers. Can

> you provide me with an explanation for this rather serious mistake?

If you recall, my original question to you was in regard to the "do-gooders" (a term which you still haven't defined) which you claimed were part of the "insensitivity problem", as well as your claim that Japan is a "paradise for criminally minded foreigners." (Paragraph 5 of your original article.) I have asked you to support these allegations, a challenge in which, so far, you have responded with more unsubstantiated claims, dismissive or condescending remarks, and a thinly veiled contempt for other foreigners -- but no data.

> Thank you. My understanding is that there was trouble with the Russians.

> But since it is hard to decide who is a Russian or not, the owner decided

> to put up a sign barring all foreigners. Having done that he would in all

> logic be required, or entiteld, to bar all foreigners, including Chinese.

How is this logical, to bar all foreigners based on the actions of Russian sailors? In addition, this goes back to my original question of what a "foreigner" is. Is a white man who is a naturalized Japanese citizen still a foreigner? What about

> It is also possible the man originally did not want any foreigners in his

> bath tub, and the Russians gave him the excuse he wanted. But not wanting

> any foreigners in your bath tub is not the necessarily the worst kind of

> racial discrimination; some Japanese are entitled to feel uneasy about

> foreigners behaving badly in the bath. Or it could even be an instinctive

> dislike of having to deal with foreigners in a fairly personal situation.

> This goes to the root of all instinctive discrimination arguments. All of

> us know people we instinctively like or dislike, and avoid having much to

> do with the latter. If an enterprise owner paying taxes and not receiving

> government subsidies decides to behave in the same way in running his

> enterprise, excluding say even Japanese he did not like, is this

> reprehensible.

> For reasons related to the bad behavior of Nazi Germany and South Africa,

> some discriminations on the basis of race have become considered sinful.

In other words, some racial discrimination is acceptable as long as it doesn't get to a "sinful" level.

> One result is that other, and worse discriminations, some on the basis of

> race (eg visa policies), tend to be overlooked. Another result is a lack

> of deeper consideration of whether people should be forced to have

> dealings with people they dislike or feel uneasy with.

>> Unfortunately, there is more going on than being refused a bath. Other

>> basic services, such as accommodation and medical care, are also denied

>> to people based purely on the color of their skin. While it is easy to

>> dismiss and just walk away, saying "I will take my business elsewhere",

>> in the end that is a selfish approach. Better to do something about

>> the situation in hopes of improving the quality of life for everyone

>> living in this country.

> Not necessarily. If the sight of foreigners marching into Japan and

> taking legal action to force the Japanese to behave in the way the

> foreigners want, and the result is inflaming nationalist, anti-foreigner

> passions, then the net result is a negative.

This is a classic case of blaming the victim rather than perpetrator. This is akin to blaming the wife for talking back to her husband after getting beaten. Or blaming African-Americans for demanding their right to vote for the increase in church bombings, lynchings, and other forms of violence and intimidation in the 1950s and 60s. Furthermore, you've provided no evidence that these lawsuits have lead to this increase in nationalism.

As for "forcing the Japanese to behave in the way the foreigners want", have you considered the possibility that perhaps most Japanese find this kind of racial discrimination reprehensible as well? It seems to be that the cause of these "nationalist, anti-foreigner passions" are due to the fact that such racial discrimination is allowed to exist, and apologists like yourself seek to defend it.

> I go further and see a Western racial superiority complex behind much of

> the clamor to have the Japanese conform to our values.

What about conforming to the values of the international community? What about conforming to the agreements and obligations that Japan has made to the rest of the world? Japan adopted the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which states, "... Any doctrine of superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and that there is no justification for racial discrimination, in theory or in practice, anywhere." This Convention was adopted by the United Nations. Are you also accusing the United Nations of a "Western racial superiority complex"?

> Japanese who dislike renting to foreigners often have good reasons, and

> experiences sometimes, to back them up. This is yet another case where the

> discrimination tends to be on the basis of national culture (a better term

> than 'race") because of the problem of deciding in advance who will be or

> will not be a 'good' gaijin .

So what you are saying is that it is acceptable to deny someone housing based on one's race or ethnicity? Is this legal in any modern democracy? What would happen if a whole neighborhood or town were to deny foreigners housing? Again, let's go to the Convention referenced above, to which Japan adopted:

Part I, Article 1, Paragraph 1: "In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

Note that it states "public life". That means in bathhouses, in housing, in the workplace, or whatever other public venue.

> I once had a Japanese landlord who would only rent to gaijin, (a) because

> he was able to decide who would 'good' or not, and (b) because he believed

> that gaijin were more likely than Japanese to obey rental contracts.

> ANyone upset by this kind of anti-Japanese discrimination?

Yes, I would be upset, and if I encountered this situation, I would seek to end this policy. I'm curious, why did you choose to live there if the landlord practiced such discrimination? In an earlier message, you said you would avoid merchants who did not accept foreigners. It seems rather ironic to me that you would avoid giving these merchants your business, but you seemingly had no problem living in a complex that was "foreigners-only".

> Every society has its balance of rights and wrongs. Often some of the

> wrongs are the inevitable result of the rights.

How so?

> On balance we both seem

> to agree that the rights of Japan are quite attractive. So why not leave

> it at that.

This reminds me of the bumper sticker in the United States: "America: Love It or Leave It." You seem to present a dichotomy between two viewpoints: on one side, one must accept everything about a society -- the good, the bad, and the ugly -- in one non-negotiable package; or, if one doesn't, that individual is being "superior", or worse, helping to nationalist and other ultra-rightist movements. I believe this dichotomy is a fallacy; an individual can love the country she or he is living in, yet still seek change and improvement for the better.

> Or rather, if some of the wrongs can be righted by gentle

> admonition rather than aggressive legal action, then go that route

> instead.

I agree. However, what happens when "gentle admonition" doesn't work?

[email protected] writes:

>> Thank you. My understanding is that there was trouble with the

>Russians.

>> But since it is hard to decide who is a Russian or not, the owner

>decided

>> to put up a sign barring all foreigners. Having done that he would in

>all

>> logic be required, or entiteld, to bar all foreigners, including

>Chinese.

>How is this logical, to bar all foreigners based on the actions of Russian

>sailors? In addition, this goes back to my original question of what a

>"foreigner" is.

If to exclude damage-creating Russians you have to put up a sign excluding

foreigners then in all logic you have to exclude all foreigners, including

Chinese (presumably you cannot have a sign saying you will only exclude

Russians since you have no way to tell who is a Russian. You could say you

exclude only white foreigners but that would be a bit strange.)

>Is a white man who is a naturalized Japanese citizen still a

>foreigner?

Yes

>What about

>> It is also possible the man originally did not want any foreigners in

>his

>> bath tub, and the Russians gave him the excuse he wanted. But not

>wanting

>> any foreigners in your bath tub is not the necessarily the worst kind of

>> racial discrimination; some Japanese are entitled to feel uneasy about

>> foreigners behaving badly in the bath. Or it could even be an

>instinctive

>> dislike of having to deal with foreigners in a fairly personal

>situation.

>> This goes to the root of all instinctive discrimination arguments. All

>of

>> us know people we instinctively like or dislike, and avoid having much

>to

>> do with the latter. If an enterprise owner paying taxes and not

>receiving

>> government subsidies decides to behave in the same way in running his

>> enterprise, excluding say even Japanese he did not like, is this

>> reprehensible.

>> For reasons related to the bad behavior of Nazi Germany and South

>Africa,

>> some discriminations on the basis of race have become considered sinful.

>In other words, some racial discrimination is acceptable as long as it

>doesn't get to a "sinful" level.

You keep evading the point. I have made the point that in all societies

there are various kinds of discrimination, some quite necessary. Some,

such as visa policies, are based on what you call race and what I would

call the propensity of people raised in a certain value system created

over time in the national territory of those people, to engage in certain

kinds of behavior, some quite admirable some less admirable.

Discrimination to protect one's own society from feared less admirable

traits - in the case of Chinese, to over-stay visas for less than

legitimate purposes; in the case of Saudi Arabians, to fly planes into

tall buildings - is a form of what you call racial discrimination. I

notice you have carefully avoided trying to answer this visa

discrimination question.

The propensity of Western-raised foreigners to engage in moralising

towards other peoples is one of the world's less admirable cultural

traits, and deserving of some discrimination against it also.

>> One result is that other, and worse discriminations, some on the basis

>of

>> race (eg visa policies), tend to be overlooked. Another result is a lack

>> of deeper consideration of whether people should be forced to have

>> dealings with people they dislike or feel uneasy with.

>>>

>>> Unfortunately, there is more going on than being refused a bath. Other

>>> basic services, such as accommodation and medical care, are also denied

>>> to people based purely on the color of their skin. While it is easy to

>>> dismiss and just walk away, saying "I will take my business elsewhere",

>>> in the end that is a selfish approach. Better to do something about

>>> the situation in hopes of improving the quality of life for everyone

>>> living in this country.

Which discrimination are you talking about - the one where the

discriminator fears damage or the one where he simply dislikes foreigners.

You have an ugly propensity to mix arguments, in your favor of course.

The former is understandable. The latter is unpleasant, but fairly rare

in Japan and rather than make a fuss I would prefer to see these people

denied business. But by all means make a fuss if it makes you feel better.

And why not let the Japanese make the fuss, unless your propensity to

superiority complexes makes you assume the Japanese are not capable of

adult judgements.

>> Not necessarily. If the sight of foreigners marching into Japan and

>> taking legal action to force the Japanese to behave in the way the

>> foreigners want, and the result is inflaming nationalist, anti-foreigner

>> passions, then the net result is a negative.

>This is a classic case of blaming the victim rather than perpetrator. This

>is akin to blaming the wife for talking back to her husband after getting

>beaten. Or blaming African-Americans for demanding their right to vote for

>the increase in church bombings, lynchings, and other forms of violence

>and

>intimidation in the 1950s and 60s.

Once again your ugly propensity to mix arguments raises its ugly head.

>Furthermore, you've provided no evidence

>that these lawsuits have lead to this increase in nationalism.

Do you follow the writings of the nationalists here? Provide your evidence

to the contrary.

>As for "forcing the Japanese to behave in the way the foreigners want",

>have

>you considered the possibility that perhaps most Japanese find this kind

>of

>racial discrimination reprehensible as well?

Possible, but since you are the one always demanding evidence, how about

you also providing the evidence in this case.

>It seems to be that the cause

>of these "nationalist, anti-foreigner passions" are due to the fact that

>such racial discrimination is allowed to exist, and apologists like

>yourself

>seek to defend it.

Tut, tut. I thought you were the one demanding politeness in discussion

groups.

>>>

>> I go further and see a Western racial superiority complex behind much of

>> the clamor to have the Japanese conform to our values.

>What about conforming to the values of the international community? What

>about conforming to the agreements and obligations that Japan has made to

>the rest of the world? Japan adopted the International Convention on the

>Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which states, "... Any

>doctrine of superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically

>false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and that there

>is

>no justification for racial discrimination, in theory or in practice,

>anywhere." This Convention was adopted by the United Nations. Are you also

>accusing the United Nations of a "Western racial superiority complex"?

Now you mention it, yes maybe.

>> Japanese who dislike renting to foreigners often have good reasons, and

>> experiences sometimes, to back them up. This is yet another case where

>the

>> discrimination tends to be on the basis of national culture (a better

>term

>> than 'race") because of the problem of deciding in advance who will be

>or

>> will not be a 'good' gaijin .

>So what you are saying is that it is acceptable to deny someone housing

>based on one's race or ethnicity? Is this legal in any modern democracy?

>What would happen if a whole neighborhood or town were to deny foreigners

>housing? Again, let's go to the Convention referenced above, to which

>Japan

>adopted:

>Part I, Article 1, Paragraph 1: "In this Convention, the term "racial

>discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or

>preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin

>which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the

>recognition,

>enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and

>fundamental

>freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field

>of

>public life."

>Note that it states "public life". That means in bathhouses, in housing,

>in

>the workplace, or whatever other public venue.

It is well-known that if you rent premises to Chinese service industry

workers it is very likely they will sub-rent to their friends and turn the

place into a slum. So what is a responsible renter supposed to do?

And please do not revert to your usual habit of demanding data to prove a

well-known phenomenon.

Re workplace, I notice you carefully refused a reply to my question about

hiring surfies.

>> I once had a Japanese landlord who would only rent to gaijin, (a)

>because

>> he was able to decide who would 'good' or not, and (b) because he

>believed

>> that gaijin were more likely than Japanese to obey rental contracts.

>> ANyone upset by this kind of anti-Japanese discrimination?

>Yes, I would be upset, and if I encountered this situation, I would seek

>to

>end this policy.

This is garbage moralising. So you would rent a premise which in the near

future you might need for other purposes, to a Japanese even though you

knew that he or she was quite likely to assume that the time limits set in

contracts are non-enforceable.

>I'm curious, why did you choose to live there if the

>landlord practiced such discrimination?

Tut, tut

> In an earlier message, you said you

>would avoid merchants who did not accept foreigners. It seems rather

>ironic

>to me that you would avoid giving these merchants your business, but you

>seemingly had no problem living in a complex that was "foreigners-only".

More tut, tut

>> Every society has its balance of rights and wrongs. Often some of the

>> wrongs are the inevitable result of the rights.

>How so?

Are you really as dumb as you seem.

Americans have an admirable liking for principle. But one result is the

non-admirable trait of excessive legalism. The Japanese show admirable

sensitivity in relationships. But one result is the non-admirable

discriminations in this society - burakumin, Koreans etc - compared with

which the bathhouse discrimination is minor, if existent at all.

The list of values which produce both positive and negative results in any

society is endless.

>> On balance we both seem

>> to agree that the rights of Japan are quite attractive. So why not leave

>> it at that.

>This reminds me of the bumper sticker in the United States: "America: Love

>It or Leave It." You seem to present a dichotomy between two viewpoints:

>on

>one side, one must accept everything about a society -- the good, the bad,

>and the ugly -- in one non-negotiable package; or, if one doesn't, that

>individual is being "superior", or worse, helping to nationalist and other

>ultra-rightist movements. I believe this dichotomy is a fallacy; an

>individual can love the country she or he is living in, yet still seek

>change and improvement for the better.

I was not talking to you. I was replying to a seemingly more mature

person who had made precisely that point, namely that for all its faults

Japan had many compensating merits. Go and moralise to him, not me .

>> Or rather, if some of the wrongs can be righted by gentle

>> admonition rather than aggressive legal action, then go that route

>> instead.

>I agree. However, what happens when "gentle admonition" doesn't work?

Keep trying.

Gregory Clark

Head, Research Japan Office

S603 Ark Hills Executive Tower

1-14-5 Akasaka

Minato-ku, Tokyo

107-0052

Tel: 03-3586-4147

Fax: 03-3586-4148

www.gregoryclark.net

www.gregoryclark.net/nakadaki

> Are you really as dumb as you seem.

You say much more about yourself with that comment than you do about me, sir.

[email protected] writes:

>> Are you really as dumb as you seem.

>You say much more about yourself with that comment than you do about me,

>sir.

Dear Steve: If you go round calling people 'apologists' for Nazi style

racial discrimination, just because they disagree with your rigidly

dogmatic views, then you deserve all the flak you get.

If you then go on to challenge the obvious concept that the values of a

society or a person can include both positive and negative aspects, then

you really are displaying some ignorance of how the world operates. “Dumb”

is one way to put it. “Obstinate” is another

But let me move the debate to a less personal level.

Much of the problem revolves around the use of the words 'race' and

‘racial.’. This automatically leads to the implication that

discrimination against people of certain nationalities is based solely on

dislike of those peoples' skin color and other physical characteristics,

or assumptions that people with that skin color etc automatically have

qualities that make them undesirable or inferior as a human being.

If such behaviour exists then clearly it is repulsive and needs to be

stamped out. It was the basis of Nazi discrimination against Jews and

Slavs, and white American discrimination against blacks. Racism is a word

that can be used.

Superiority complexes are also the basis of Western moralizing against

foreign peoples, and of the lack of conscience about the vicious attacks

made on some of these peoples eg Vietnam, Serbia or Iraq.

To some extent the superiority factor also existed in South Africa, though

there it was mixed with the less hateful concept that social development

is enhanced if races are separated - since it can be argued that people do

cooperate and progress better when they are with people who share their

values and do not have to relate closely to people who do not share those

values.

The South Africans who today are prepared to give up land and status to go

and live in new all-white communities belong more to that point of view.

That point of view would also have spared Australia much of the problem it

has had in dealing with its Aboriginal community. In other words, the

Aborigines today would probably have been better off if they had been left

to organise their own affairs. It was the progressive moralists who

denounced such an approach as racial segregation who have created much of

the damage we see today, since it is clear that free contact between white

and Aborigine communities has created enormous problems. The cultural gap

between the two is too wide to close.

Another problem with the 'racial' tag is the endless arguments about what

is race. A much more realistic concept is the one I tried to give you

earlier but you have ignored - namely that peoples raised in a certain

national milieu will tend to share the same set of values and attitudes.

That set of values and attitudes is usually the result of shared

historical experience, and helps greatly to keep that society intact. It

has its own validity.

In short we are talking about cultural differences, not racial

differences.(The concept that you and others seem to share, namely that if

a Westerner takes Japanese nationality, then he or she is automatically a

Japanese, is a reflection of yet another distorted concept of race. Not

until that person has abandoned Western values and accepted fully the

value system of the Japanese – something very difficult to do – can she or

he be regarded as Japanese.)

But the values and attitudes of my national group are not necessarily

those of other peoples. AS a result other peoples may decide that they do

not understand or cannot coexist with my values and attitudes, and

discriminate against me on that basis (something that I will argue is not

unreasonable at times) So instead of hysterical talk about racism and

racial discrimination, how about more measured talk about cultural

differences, the question of whether discrimination on the basis of those

differences is justified, and how to overcome them.

Once we can get to replace the term ‘racial differences’ with ‘cultural

differences’ a lot of things fall into place. For example, and as should

be obvious from my writings, I admire many cultural qualities of the

Chinese people – their strong individualism, their liking for debate,

their willingness to suffer and work hard, their resistance to Japanese

militarism etc.

But they also have certain qualities that would make me reluctant to go

into business with them or rent a premise to them unless I know them well

and can be sure there will be no trouble. It is no secret, for example,

that part of the Chinese value system can be a ruthless determination to

make or save money at any costs. If this is going to be at my expense then

I do need to do business with them or rent premises to them.

I also admire the Japanese as a people, but there too I would be reluctant

to do business or rent premises unless I knew the other person well, since

cultural differences can create problems. The same goes in reverse for

Japanese wanting to do business with or rent premises to me.

Which brings me to the discrimination problem.

I notice that you have not disagreed with my basic argument, namely that

the efficient working of any society or its organisations requires various

kinds of discrimination – employers refusing people lacking needed skills

or work attitudes, universities refusing students with poor academic

abilities and so on. The provision of rental accommodation would soon dry

up if all landlords were obliged to rent premises to gangsters or untidy

students.

Please note that this is not discrimination against foreigners. It is

discrimination against one’s own nationals.

In other words, even among the people of one’s own nation there can be big

differences in values and attitudes. True, the criteria used for making

those discriminations may sometimes be crude and unfair; some gangsters

are well-behaved and some students are quite tidy. But often the people

making the judgements are unable to spare the time or funds to find out

these things. But whatever criteria are used, crude or sophisticated,

discrimination can result.

When it comes to creating clubs and associations, the need for

discrimination can sometimes become even greater since by their very

definition clubs etc are often supposed to be groups of people with shared

values and attitudes.

Now if we accept that people may have to discriminate against their own

nationals on the basis of their having different values or attitudes, then

why is it impermissible to do the same to foreigners with different values

and attitudes?

I assume that you accept that dealings with foreigners are desirable. But

in that case, once again there may be a need for discrimination. Indeed

the need may be even greater since the cultural gap will often be greater

than that with one’s own nationals. And the judgements may be even

cruder, since they will often have to be made without the help of

experience or even language communication with the foreigner. The results

can easily be a discrimination even more unfair than that against one’s

own nationals. But that too is inevitable, unless people like yourself

with strong moral instincts are prepared to intervene in all cases to act

as intermediaries and smooth out the differences. Are you so prepared?

Even then there will discrimination. Some people who deserve to be

rejected will be rejected. If a Japanese is justified in refusing to rent

a premise to untidy Japanese student or a Japanese gangster then the

communication and cultural gap means he is even more entitled to refuse

their foreign equivalents – unless your moralism extends to wanting to

find a home for all Korean gangsters or untidy Chinese students In which

case it is very likely that you will have to provide the home. Prepared

for that too?

Visa policies are an obvious example where there will be unfair

discrimination, since it is often impossible for governments to examine

the values and attitudes of all applicants. Please note that this

discrimination is done by governments who have signed the UN Conventions

you regard as so important.

To come to the point: discrimination happens. And it happens whether the

targets are foreigners or one’s own nationals. The only argument should be

over whether it is justified discrimination or not. Your efforts to put a

blanket ban on all discrimination, especially against foreigners, are

quite unrealistic.

Let me put things in reverse, so you have to do the talking rather than

me: Do you really think it is wrong for a property owner to exclude a

gangster from entering or renting a premise. I note that you have chosen

to remain silent on the bathhouse owners who refuse entry to people with

tattoes. I assume you know the reason, namely that some of these people do

much worse than urinate in the bath tub if they decide they do not like

the bathhouse owner. Unfair discrimination? Hardly.

From these obvious examples we can move to less obvious examples of

whether discrimination is reasonable or not – for example, the Japanese

landlord to refuses to rent to a Japanese speaking foreigner with good

credentials, or the bar owner who feels that the clubby atmosphere that he

has worked so hard to create in his bar will be harmed by foreigners being

able freely to enter. And so on.

By my standards, if these people are not receiving government subsidies

they are not obliged to behave in the ways that governments or progressive

moralists might like. But they are just my standards. You are entitled to

a different opinion. But assuming you have already accepted the argument

that some forms of discrimination are inevitable if societies are to

function properly, then please accept that these discrimination decisions

and judgements are sometimes difficult. Certainly they should not be

subject to legal action simply because they are contrary to your

standards, or what unrealistic UN Conventions might say.

By my standards, the Otaru bathhouse owners were entitled to refuse entry

to drunken Russian seaman. I speak Russian, I like Russians, I have lived

in Russia and have praised aspects of Russian culture. But I have also

visited the Otaru wharves, spoken to the people there and know just how

rough, and drunken, they can be (are you in the same position to make

judgements?). Without any doubt whatsoever, I can say that if I was

running an Otaru bathhouse I would want to keep them out.

What could be done, however, is that instead of a, ugly open sign barring

all foreigners, foreign visitors on bathhouse arrival could be handed a

piece of paper in a range of languages setting out politely the reasons

for the ban. If the moralists could be persuaded to cooperate in

preparing these pieces of paper rather than rushing to court crying out

racial discrimination, the world would be a better place.

Oh, and by the way, could you answer some of the questions in my previous

post.

. .

Gregory Clark

Head, Research Japan Office

S603 Ark Hills Executive Tower

1-14-5 Akasaka

Minato-ku, Tokyo

107-0052

Tel: 03-3586-4147

Fax: 03-3586-4148

www.gregoryclark.net

www.gregoryclark.net/nakadaki

"... you really are displaying some ignorance of how the world operates. “Dumb” is one way to put it. “Obstinate” is another."

What world, the World According to Gregory Clark?

Since you appear to be unable to debate without resorting to invectives and insults, I'd like to make one last and final comment, and then I will have said my peace on this matter.

Racial discrimination has no place in a modern democratic society. Japan cannot have it both ways -- it cannot strive to be a member of the international community while at same time ignoring international codes of conduct in the manner in which its minorities are treated. It cannot seek to become a permanent member of the United Nations while ignoring a UN Convention -- which Japan has adopted -- to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination. If Japan wishes to engage in and benefit from being a major part of the international community, it must adhere to its commitments made to that same community to abolish all forms of racial and ethnic discrimination in public life.

You have claimed that Japan is not a litigious nation, and have criticized those who have used the Japanese legal system to address racial discrimination. However, if this were true, then why does Japan have civil laws, attorneys which try civil cases, and courts in which to hold civil proceedings? I agree that "gentle admonition" should be used to its full extent, and that legal action should only be used as a last resort. The fact that there are Japanese plaintiffs who file lawsuits in Japanese civil court, however, seems to contradict the claim that filing a lawsuit is somehow un-Japanese.

You have also claimed that many countries, including the United States, discriminate in their immigration procedures, and that this is normal and acceptable. Part I, Article 1, Paragraph 3 of the U.N. Convention mentioned above states: "Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as affecting in any way the legal provisions of States Parties concerning nationality, citizenship or naturalization, provided that such provisions do not discriminate against any particular nationality." I do not agree with much of U.S. immigration policy because I do believe that much of this policy does discriminate against those of certain nationalities, and I actively support American advocacy organizations that work to change these policies. However, the fact that the U.S., as well as other countries, wrongly engage in discriminatory immigration policies is not justification for Japan or any other civilized democratic nation to do so.

You have further claimed that racial discrimination is justified if merchants have had negative experiences with those of certain races or ethnic groups. In addition, you have claimed that merchants have the right to deny access or services to those members of a particular racial or ethnic group out of fear or dislike. However, these actions are based on the notion of racial superiority, and that an individual's behavior can be pre-judged based on her or his race or ethnicity. This notion is scientifically indefensible, morally repugnant, and socially unjust and dangerous. Furthermore, it is in violation of the aforementioned U.N. Convention -- which Japan adopted -- which states that racial discrimination is "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life," and that parties adopting the Convention "condemn racial discrimination and undertake to pursue... without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms (Part I, Article 2, Paragraph 1)." Despite your view that this Convention is "unrealistic", Japan has adopted it and is therefore bound to follow it as a member of the international community. Regardless of any past behavior by members of certain ethnic groups or any personal sentiments held by specific merchants, all persons have the right to engage in public life without having to undergo racial discrimination, and the Japanese government has the obligation under international law to ensure that no one is denied that right based on her or his race or ethnicity.

Certainly merchants have the right, provided it is not on the basis of race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin, to exclude those who they do not want in their establishment. A restaurant has the right to exclude those who are not dressed appropriately or those who cause a disturbance. Employers have the right not to hire those with unkempt appearances. Bathhouses not allowing individuals with tattoos is acceptable since it is not discriminating on the basis or race, nationality, or ethnic origin. Your recommendation that advocates work with merchants to make rules that are clearly posted in several languages is a good one. My understanding is that it has been tried, with occasional success; however, there are a few merchants who have not accepted this offer and continue with their policies. Employers, housing authorities, bathhouses, restaurants, or any other entity open to the public have the obligation not to discriminate based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin, and the government has the obligation to ensure that this does not occur. The apologist defense of racial or ethnic discrimination based upon vague notions of Japan being a "tribal" nation do not excuse it from adhering to international norms and obligations.

In addition, you have made the allegation that these lawsuits are part of an "insensitivity problem" and that they contribute to a growing nationalistic movement. This is reminiscent of the argument that was made by segregationists in the American South during the 1950s and 1960s, claiming that segregation was a part of Southern culture and that they had the right to maintain their heritage. As the Civil Rights Movement grew, violence against African-Americans grew, and many -- including some black leaders at the time -- criticized Dr. King and others for moving too far, too fast. Some even laid the blame for the violence squarely at his feet. Fortunately, views have changed in the last forty years; however, the Klu Klux Klan as well as neo-Nazi groups still exist in the U.S. and still advocate their racist and xenophobic mantra. To put the blame on those to seek justice and equality under the law for the rise in any nationalist activity goes against not only logic but the foundation and principles of a free and democratic nation.

You condemn the racist attitudes that led to oppression and murder in Nazi Germany and the Old South. At the same time, you object to the words "race" and "racial" to describe much of the discrimination that has occurred in Japan. However, racial discrimination is exactly what is occurring. When a Japanese citizen is denied entry to a public establishment solely on the basis of that individual's race, then it cannot be called anything but racial discrimination, and must be, to use your words, "stamped out". However, what I find most incredible is your apologist attitude of past South African and Australian segregation. You state that "people do cooperate and progress better when they are with people who share their values and do not have to relate closely to people who do not share those values." I find that view truly amazing among an individual of your education and experience in this day and age. What is most appalling, however, is not that you hold that view -- unfortunately, there are many with segregationist views in the world -- but that you hold a position in society that could influence others and, perhaps, others may be misled to think that you represent the views of other non-Japanese living here. That concerns me deeply.

Japan is not in the Edo era anymore. It is a modern democratic nation that is part of the international community. Japan, being one of the largest and most economically powerful democratic nations in the world, has an obligation to meet its international commitment to freedom and equality under the law. It's a commitment that should be taken seriously if it wishes to be both an economic and moral leader in the world.

Sincerely,

Steve Silver

In a long message I have given reasons why what you call racial

discrimination is in fact cultural discrimination, and it is something

that even you accept may be needed at times for the proper running of

society.

But you turn round and tell me I am advocating racial discrimination. Is

there something wrong with you.

And by the way, let me repeat that someone who does not realise that

values and attitudes can have both positive and negative effects really is

'dumb.'

[email protected] writes:

>"... you really are displaying some ignorance of how the world operates.

>?Dumb? is one way to put it. ?Obstinate? is another."

>What world, the World According to Gregory Clark?

>Since you appear to be unable to debate without resorting to invectives

>and

>insults, I'd like to make one last and final comment, and then I will have

>said my peace on this matter.

>Racial discrimination has no place in a modern democratic society. Japan

>cannot have it both ways -- it cannot strive to be a member of the

>international community while at same time ignoring international codes of

>conduct in the manner in which its minorities are treated. It cannot seek

>to

>become a permanent member of the United Nations while ignoring a UN

>Convention -- which Japan has adopted -- to eliminate all forms of racial

>discrimination. If Japan wishes to engage in and benefit from being a

>major

>part of the international community, it must adhere to its commitments

>made

>to that same community to abolish all forms of racial and ethnic

>discrimination in public life.

>You have claimed that Japan is not a litigious nation, and have criticized

>those who have used the Japanese legal system to address racial

>discrimination. However, if this were true, then why does Japan have civil

>laws, attorneys which try civil cases, and courts in which to hold civil

>proceedings? I agree that "gentle admonition" should be used to its full

>extent, and that legal action should only be used as a last resort. The

>fact

>that there are Japanese plaintiffs who file lawsuits in Japanese civil

>court, however, seems to contradict the claim that filing a lawsuit is

>somehow un-Japanese.

>You have also claimed that many countries, including the United States,

>discriminate in their immigration procedures, and that this is normal and

>acceptable. Part I, Article 1, Paragraph 3 of the U.N. Convention

>mentioned

>above states: "Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as affecting

>in

>any way the legal provisions of States Parties concerning nationality,

>citizenship or naturalization, provided that such provisions do not

>discriminate against any particular nationality." I do not agree with much

>of U.S. immigration policy because I do believe that much of this policy

>does discriminate against those of certain nationalities, and I actively

>support American advocacy organizations that work to change these

>policies.

>However, the fact that the U.S., as well as other countries, wrongly

>engage

>in discriminatory immigration policies is not justification for Japan or

>any

>other civilized democratic nation to do so.

>You have further claimed that racial discrimination is justified if

>merchants have had negative experiences with those of certain races or

>ethnic groups. In addition, you have claimed that merchants have the right

>to deny access or services to those members of a particular racial or

>ethnic

>group out of fear or dislike. However, these actions are based on the

>notion

>of racial superiority, and that an individual's behavior can be pre-judged

>based on her or his race or ethnicity. This notion is scientifically

>indefensible, morally repugnant, and socially unjust and dangerous.

>Furthermore, it is in violation of the aforementioned U.N. Convention --

>which Japan adopted -- which states that racial discrimination is "any

>distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour,

>descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of

>nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an

>equal

>footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political,

>economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life," and that

>parties adopting the Convention "condemn racial discrimination and

>undertake

>to pursue... without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination

>in

>all its forms (Part I, Article 2, Paragraph 1)." Despite your view that

>this

>Convention is "unrealistic", Japan has adopted it and is therefore bound

>to

>follow it as a member of the international community. Regardless of any

>past behavior by members of certain ethnic groups or any personal

>sentiments

>held by specific merchants, all persons have the right to engage in public

>life without having to undergo racial discrimination, and the Japanese

>government has the obligation under international law to ensure that no

>one

>is denied that right based on her or his race or ethnicity.

>Certainly merchants have the right, provided it is not on the basis of

>race,

>color, descent, or national or ethnic origin, to exclude those who they do

>not want in their establishment. A restaurant has the right to exclude

>those

>who are not dressed appropriately or those who cause a disturbance.

>Employers have the right not to hire those with unkempt appearances.

>Bathhouses not allowing individuals with tattoos is acceptable since it is

>not discriminating on the basis or race, nationality, or ethnic origin.

>Your

>recommendation that advocates work with merchants to make rules that are

>clearly posted in several languages is a good one. My understanding is

>that

>it has been tried, with occasional success; however, there are a few

>merchants who have not accepted this offer and continue with their

>policies.

>Employers, housing authorities, bathhouses, restaurants, or any other

>entity

>open to the public have the obligation not to discriminate based on race,

>color, descent, or national or ethnic origin, and the government has the

>obligation to ensure that this does not occur. The apologist defense of

>racial or ethnic discrimination based upon vague notions of Japan being a

>"tribal" nation do not excuse it from adhering to international norms and

>obligations.

>In addition, you have made the allegation that these lawsuits are part of

>an

>"insensitivity problem" and that they contribute to a growing

>nationalistic

>movement. This is reminiscent of the argument that was made by

>segregationists in the American South during the 1950s and 1960s, claiming

>that segregation was a part of Southern culture and that they had the

>right

>to maintain their heritage. As the Civil Rights Movement grew, violence

>against African-Americans grew, and many -- including some black leaders

>at

>the time -- criticized Dr. King and others for moving too far, too fast.

>Some even laid the blame for the violence squarely at his feet.

>Fortunately, views have changed in the last forty years; however, the Klu

>Klux Klan as well as neo-Nazi groups still exist in the U.S. and still

>advocate their racist and xenophobic mantra. To put the blame on those to

>seek justice and equality under the law for the rise in any nationalist

>activity goes against not only logic but the foundation and principles of

>free and democratic nation.

>You condemn the racist attitudes that led to oppression and murder in Nazi

>Germany and the Old South. At the same time, you object to the words

>"race"

>and "racial" to describe much of the discrimination that has occurred in

>Japan. However, racial discrimination is exactly what is occurring. When a

>Japanese citizen is denied entry to a public establishment solely on the

>basis of that individual's race, then it cannot be called anything but

>racial discrimination, and must be, to use your words, "stamped out".

>However, what I find most incredible is your apologist attitude of past

>South African and Australian segregation. You state that "people do

>cooperate and progress better when they are with people who share their

>values and do not have to relate closely to people who do not share those

>values." I find that view truly amazing among an individual of your

>education and experience in this day and age. What is most appalling,

>however, is not that you hold that view -- unfortunately, there are many

>with segregationist views in the world -- but that you hold a position in

>society that could influence others and, perhaps, others may be misled to

>think that you represent the views of other non-Japanese living here. That

>concerns me deeply.

>Japan is not in the Edo era anymore. It is a modern democratic nation that

>is part of the international community. Japan, being one of the largest

>and

>most economically powerful democratic nations in the world, has an

>obligation to meet its international commitment to freedom and equality

>under the law. It's a commitment that should be taken seriously if it

>wishes

>to be both an economic and moral leader in the world.

>Sincerely,

>Steve Silver

Gregory Clark

Head, Research Japan Office

S603 Ark Hills Executive Tower

1-14-5 Akasaka

Minato-ku, Tokyo

107-0052

Tel: 03-3586-4147

Fax: 03-3586-4148

www.gregoryclark.net

www.gregoryclark.net/nakadaki

PS: If you do not know about the tragedy of the Australian aborigines,

and the fact that even progressive moralists such as yourself now accept

that partial or complete segregation from white communities is the only

answer, then you really are displaying the worst kind of dogmatism over

the very complex question of cultural differences between racial and

national groups.

Great. At last I find another voice. Please tell me where I am wrong.

[email protected] writes:

>Gregory Clark wrote:

>> In a long message I have given reasons why what you call racial

>> discrimination is in fact cultural discrimination, and it is

>something

>> that even you accept may be needed at times for the proper running of

>> society.

>You have done nothing of the sort. On the contrary, in several long

>messages Mr.Silver has given reasons why what you call cultural

>discrimination is in fact racaial discrimination.

>> But you turn round and tell me I am advocating racial discrimination.

>Is

>> there something wrong with you.

>That is what you do! There is a lot of wrong with you!

Gregory Clark

Head, Research Japan Office

S603 Ark Hills Executive Tower

1-14-5 Akasaka

Minato-ku, Tokyo

107-0052

Tel: 03-3586-4147

Fax: 03-3586-4148

www.gregoryclark.net

www.gregoryclark.net/nakadaki

Everywhere

Brilliant response. But can't you do even better.

[email protected] writes:

>Everywhere

Gregory Clark

Head, Research Japan Office

S603 Ark Hills Executive Tower

1-14-5 Akasaka

Minato-ku, Tokyo

107-0052

Tel: 03-3586-4147

Fax: 03-3586-4148

www.gregoryclark.net

www.gregoryclark.net/nakadaki

No, I cant. It is hard to talk to a person that most powerfull

responses to oppinion different than his, are a lot of "tut tut"s and

strightforward insults. Mr.Silver has pointed out in a brilliant way

almost everything that is wrong with what you deffend, but it proved

useless. All that comes back from you is exactly what you are accusing

him of doing: quibbling, evading answerring the questions you have been

asked, and personal insults. I was surprised Mr. Silver had the

patience to keep trying for so long.

You mentioned you have been living in Russia. Was it actually in the

Soviet Union? Your manner of "arguing" reminds me a lot of the way

party activists used to "argue" there and in the other countries in

Eastern Europe.

Thank you for your reply. However, this mystifies me. You said;

"You have yet to prove to me that a bathhouse owner who does not want

have his premises beaten up or his bathtub urinated in is guilty of

racial

discrimination."

In this case, the onsen owner put up a sign that said "no foreigners".

The person who wanted to take a bath was not a foreigner, he was a

Japanese. Yet, still he was refused. The reason? His race. He was a

white man. It seems pretty simple. Also, his daughter, a Japanese

citizen born in Japan of a Japanese mother, was also refused! Why?

Her race too. She looked too white. I admire Mr. Arudo's restraint in

the matter frankly. If the same thing had happened to MY son, I may

have been a little more, how can I say, direct in my actions.

You also have an idea that "the west" is trying to force "western"

ideals on an unwilling Japan. Not true. The ideals are those supported

by the international community at large, and are ideals that Japan, as

a member of said community, has both a legal and moral obligation to

uphold.

Yes, there are larger issues to worry about. However, we have to start

somewhere. Your constant ad hom attacks on those who try to drag Japan

into the 21st century as "do gooders" do both you and your position

little good.

As for me, I am not trying to be superior. However, I am also not

content with being just a guest in Japan. I am not. I am a resident,

and plan to make this my home. However, my point stands. Japan cannot

survive in isolation from the world, accepting goods and people while

maintaining the current state of social affairs.

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my mail.

One more thing I just found;

You said that;

"The Japanese show admirable sensitivity in relationships."

Is this the sensitivity they showed Mr. Arudo when he was told he could

not enter a public establishment with his child? Or I was shown when,

as a married man, I was told my money was no good to rent an apartment

based on NOTHING? Or another American gentlemen was shown when we was

shouted at when he tried to buy eyeglasses in Kobe?

Such generalizations and platitudes may sell well in the overseas

press, and also may make friends among the Japanese media, but do

little to help the situation IMHO. The implication is that others

(gaijin) do NOT show such sensitivity. It is a ridiculous and

valueless assumption.

Is there something wrong with you people? IN the immediately following

sentence I went on to say that the same sensitivity caused the very cruel

and unfair discriminations against burakumin and Koreans?

Compared with that, what your friends suffered is minor.

Are you illiterate or something? Or do you only read what you want to read

and ignore anything that contradicts your prejudices.

I have rarely come across a debate so one-sided and bigoted as this debate

over Otaru bathhouses.

[email protected] writes:

Dear DS: I have already explained the problem that a bathhouse owner

would probably face if he had decided he did not want any more drunken

Russians.

He could not put up a sign saying no Russians since he could not

distinguish Russians from other white foreigners. So having put up a sign

saying no foreigners, in all logic he would feel he had to ban all

foreigners.

The fact that a white foreigner has taken Japanese nationality would

probably not impress him. He would regard the white foreigner as belong to

the cultural group called white foreigner, and rightly.

But you raise the larger question of having to live in Japan.

I think if you have more experience here you will find that for ever

slight and pinprick that we foreigners receive there are many other

compensating advantages that we gain as foreigners. There are also many

areas, for example land purchase nad publication of materials in English ,

where Japan is far more tolerant to foreigners than most other equivalent

nations.

The Japanese sensitivity to foreigners here pushes them in both

directions - to discriminate harmfully at some times and very favorably at

other times.

I have a feeling throughout this debate that some people feel it is

impossible for a factor to operate in both a good and a bad direction.

Everything has to be one thing or the other. Is this the result of some

kind of absolutism embedded in Western thinking and philosophy?

I do not find the same absolutism here with the Japanese. On the contrary

they tend to flip flop too easily at times from one position to its

opposite. Which could be one reason for their ambiguity in relations with

foreigners.

Gregory Clark

Head, Research Japan Office

S603 Ark Hills Executive Tower

1-14-5 Akasaka

Minato-ku, Tokyo

107-0052

Tel: 03-3586-4147

Fax: 03-3586-4148

www.gregoryclark.net

www.gregoryclark.net/nakadaki

It's with a certain amount of bewilderment that I've been reading this

thread, but it wasn't until Dr. Clark posed the question "Is there

something wrong with you people?" that I fully understood his

opponents' persistence. As Dr. Clark is a 68 year-old man, he's not

much longer for this world. Those of less advanced age, however, will

remain for some time to come. They're the ones who will inherit the

dysfunctional society created by Dr. Clark and all the other ideologues

of Japanese uniqueness.

Yes, Japan is unique, but not at the expense of all other cultures. The

world is filled with a myriad of unique cultures, thank goodness. The

proponents of Nihonjinron, however, have made their writing careers by

insisting that somehow Japanese culture is so unique as to dwarf all

others.

Undeniably, the ease with which most Japanese embraced the idea of a

Japanese uniqueness contributed in no small part to the miraculous

rebuilding of Japan after WWII. In retrospect, however, it's

questionable how many of the tenets of Nihonjinron actually hold up to

scrutiny. It may surprise you to learn that I've read several of Dr.

Clark's books, and consider some of his ideas to be instructive.

Unfortunately, any personal gains made in understanding Japanese

culture via these books must be tempered with the knowledge that

collectively they represent an industry whose existence depends on the

steadfast propagation of the very ideas which will ultimately spell the

demise of Japan as a first world nation. Simply stated, Nihonjinron is

propaganda that has outlived its usefulness. By all rights, it should

have died with the bubble economy.

Given the aging society resulting from declining birthrates, and the

related labor shortage and tax base problems, the quality of life one

can expect in Japan's future is quiet uncertain. Promoting immigration

and naturalization is quite obviously one way the government might

choose to address these problems. Policy makers steeped in Nihonjinron,

however, would no more welcome this solution than cut off their own

paws. As Dr. Clark stated earlier in this thread, an American who

naturalized is still just a white foreigner.

It might be likened to the old question, "Did god create man, or did

man create god?" In this case we could paraphrase, "Did Japanese, with

the help of Dr. Clark et al, create Nihonjinron, or did Nihonjinron

create the Japan in which we currently reside? What I find truly ironic

is that Dr. Clark will never witness the devastation he helped to

create. In fact, he'll remain steadfast in his certitude even on his

not to distant deathbed, still convinced that anyone who disagrees with

him is an idiot. His opponents in this debate, however, will live on

for a few more decades, and in all likelihood, we'll get caught right

in the middle of the travesty. I suspect that to a lot of people, this

turn of events leaves them with the impression that Dr. Clark is little

more than a criminal who has gotten away scot-free with his crimes.

Thus, I return to the original question, "Is there something wrong with

you people?"

Indeed, Dr. Clark, there is something very wrong with us. We recognize

your writing as a self-serving relic of a very different period in

Japanese history. Given the unprecedented need for internationalization

in Japan, it's not only irresponsible to continue propagating

Nihonjinron, it's irreprehensible. You're doing a tremendous disservice

to future generations. And, as most of "you people" are half your age,

we are those future generations. THAT is what's wrong with us.

G. Evan Bennett

Sapporo, Japan

>In short we are talking about cultural differences, not racial

>differences.(The concept that you and others seem to share, namely

that if

>a Westerner takes Japanese nationality, then he or she is

automatically a

>Japanese, is a reflection of yet another distorted concept of race.

Not

>until that person has abandoned Western values and accepted fully the

>value system of the Japanese - something very difficult to do -

can she or

>he be regarded as Japanese.)

So, being Japanese is a state of mind. Does this mean that a Japanese

person who does not 'accept fully the value system of the Japanese' is,

therefore, no longer Japanese? How are we to tell who is Japanese or

not, then? Do we set up some kind of 'values' test?

Ryan

I define a person's nationality by his or her cultural values. The mere

fact of wanting to sue the bath owners proves that the person concerned

clearly has Westsern values, not Japanse values, regardless of what his

passport may say.

We have the same problem in reverse, when the Japanese media report that a

British citizen was caught trying to rob a convenience store. Those who

know British attitudes know it is very unlikely they would be doing such a

thing, in Japan at least. Only later do we find that the person concerned

was someone from another society who has British citizenship but who

clearly has not integrated fully into British society.

Maybe my wording was to strong.

But the point should be clear. Someone born and brought up in a

Japanese family in Japanese society will almost certainly have Japanese

attitudes and values, even if he or she objects to some of those values.

Some Japanese who have lived abroad for long periods do seem able to

abandon Japanese values/ attitudes and adapt to those of the host country.

Japanese in Latin America are good examples. In that case if they call

themselves say Brazilian I would have no problem.

But it is rare to see the same thing in reverse. I have met quite a few

Westerners with Japanese nationality and who have lived here for some

time, but it is clear that they have not adapted their basic values to

Japanese society, largely because the values/attitudes gap is too wide.

This in not to deny the sincerity and reality of their nationality change,

but so as far as I am concerned they are still foreigners.

The exceptions are mainly those brought up in Japan. Some of them seem

able to move freely on the other side of the gap.

Dear Evan Bennett: You get several things wrong about me. First I am not

68. Second I am not a Dr. (read my bio, and you will see why).

If you have indeed read my books you will discover that I do not say the

Japanene are unique. (If a book publisher uses that word in the title of

a book, that is his idea, not mine. My word for the Japanese was 'tribal.'

I still think that is accurate.)

What I say is that there are two basic value systems operating in

societies - one a more principled/ideological system found mainly among

the older civilizations and another more instinctive and emotional found

among the more isolated or immature societies. Japan is a rather

exaggerated version of the latter, though others exist, mainly in

Southeast Asia and northern Europe (at least until recently).

I am involved in Ningen-ron, not Nihonjin-ron.

But you are right - there are a lot of nationalistic and

ultra-nationalistic Japanese who would like to use the uniqueness theme to

justify their attitudes. If you read what I write, you should be aware

that I have done a lot more than most to try to expose the evils of

Japanese ultra-nationalism.

You are right also to talk about the Nihonjin-ron industry. But instead of

complaining of its existence (and if you read my bio. it should be clear

that I stumbled into it by accident, mainly in an effort to explain the

differences between the Japanese and the Chinese), why not do a point by

point rebuttal of the various Nihinjin-ron claims.

The anti-Nihonjin-ron people remind me of the theologians who denied that

the earth went round the sun, simply because the idea clashed with their

established beliefs.

Also if you have read what I write, you will realise that I believe my

Ningen-ron can explain a lot about Japan's economy, diplomacy and

politics. It can also explain a lot about northern European peoples,

Anglosaxons especially. If you were a serious researcher you would realise

that even if you disagree with my views and conclusions, you do not do

yourself any credit by resorting to abuse.

Can you tell the difference between Russians and other white foreigners?

Congratulations. I can't, despite living in Russia for two years.

Your argument that the bath owner should have been able to distinguish

Russians from others seems to imply that while he was justified in

refusing entry to Russians he was not justified in refusing other white

foreigners. But I thought this whole debate began with the claim that the

bath owner was wrong to refuse Russians.

Another curious point: If it is inherent racist dislike of foreigners

rather than justified dislike of problems caused by Russian customers that

is motivating those shop and bath owners with No Foreigner signs, then

surely we would find the same proliferation of signs in the parts of Japan

where there were no Russians.

Re my use of the word 'cultural group' please re-read my earlier post.

So you define nationality according to 'values'.

Respectfully, Mr Clark, this is obfuscation. A great many Japanese

citizens I know would not qualify as "Japanese" under this definition.

Whatever the ethnic background, a person holding a Japanese passport is

Japanese. Like it or not, the so-called 'developed' countries are

increasingly pluralistic and to deny that is to live in another

century.

Is an Australian citizen of Japanese descent still a foreigner if he

doesn't go to the rugby match on Sunday?

MDP

> If you were a serious researcher you would realise

> that even if you disagree with my views and conclusions, you do not do

> yourself any credit by resorting to abuse.

Sorry to jump in, but this kind of blatant hypocrisy deserves a response.

Mr. Clark makes statements such as, "What's wrong with you people?", "You are really from another planet," and, "Are you really that dumb?" Following this, he has the gall to accuse others of "resorting to abuse". I believe Mr. Clark would do well to follow his own advice about abusive remarks before he admonishes others.

Steve

Who decides? Good question. But usually there is a set of attitudes that

covers most of the population of a national group - a kind of national

psychology. And usually people feel more at ease dealing with or mixing

with others who share those attitudes.

Within the national group there are sub-groups based on religious. work,

class and other differences. Once again people usually prefer to be with

people of their sub-group.

This is not just an instinctive affair. In many of our day to day dealings

we have to decide whether to trust people, be nice to them, be hard on

them etc. It help a lot if one knows the psychology of the other person.

A geniune internationalist can overcome many of these psychological

barriers. But they are few in number.

I have spent almost my entire adult life living in foreign countries -

China, Russia, Japan, England. But I still find it easier to get on the

wave length of Australians, since I was brought up there.

[email protected] writes:

My previous post defines how I see nationality. Maybe I confuse things by

using the word values, since, and as you imply, within a national group

there can be different values. The values of a yakuza are different from

those of a Japanese opera singer.

Perhaps a better term is national psychology - the way people feel and

think in certain situations. There, I feel, there will be a commonality

between the gangster and the opera singer, even if it is only language

that holds them together.

I find it difficult to understand this concept that just because I hold

the passport of a nation different from that in which I was born and

raised, I ipso facto share the values, attitudes and psychology of that

passport-issuing nation. Most nations make some effort to encourage a

degree of assimilation before they issue passports, but usually that is

not enough.

People born and raised in Japan as Japanese would find it hard to adapt to

Australia even if they had Australian citizenship, though there are a few

exceptions. As far as I know there are very few Australians able to go

the other way.

In both cases the national culture or psychology has strong instinctive

elements acting as barriers.

The problem of assimilating Muslims in Europe is another example.Here the

problem is the broad cultural gap. The US has still to assimilate much of

its black population, with many of the blacks able to create their own

viable and quite attractive culture. Instinctive barriers also exist.

On the other hand I am very impressed by the way many non-Europeans

educated in European nations do manage to assimilate. The stronger, more

clearly defined, and less instinctive nature of Europen culture could

help.

On 1/1/05 11:41 PM, "Gregory Clark" <[email protected]> wrote:

> If you were a serious researcher you would realise

> that even if you disagree with my views and conclusions, you do not do

> yourself any credit by resorting to abuse.

If that's not an example of the pot calling the kettle black, then I don't know what is.

Steve

Can't you do better than this?

Since you said you had read some of my books, I assumed that you were a

serious anti-Nihonjinron scholar, and hoped to get a dialogue going with

you. Which is why I tried to set out my position in some detail.

Instead all I get is what we see below.

Regards to you Steve Silver, perhaps you could offer something more

than "Define this word" or "Define this phrase". Apparently, you're

some kind of assistant professor or the like (wondering if it's in

English) and if so, why is it you're having so much trouble

understanding basic English words and phrases?

It's easy to sit there and quote some figures you researched on the

Jetro site, and then play the "descrimination isn't right" card, but

I'm assuming Mr. Clark is drawing on over 35 years of living in Japan

and the various and not innumerous commitees he sits on. This I have

gathered from reading his website thoroughly and getting an idea of the

man. Perhaps you should, too.

Morgan

And I don't think Mr. Clark's views are in any way reflective of his

age, as suggested by some posters here. I feel his views are based on

realism, and experience, which many people find hard to swallow

apparently.

Yes, Japan has its quirks towards foreigners, especially on matters of

house/apartment rental, but come on, the people attacking Clark in this

thread don't know they're alive. You think you've got it so bad, try

going and setting up shop in Korea, China, Taiwan, or any other host of

not-so-foreigner-loving countries. If you can't admit that the

benefits of being a foreigner here in Japan far out-weigh the issues,

then maybe you should go live in say, Switzerland.

When I first heard this story of the gaijin-come-Japanese person suing

this bathhouse, I agreed that he had a case. This was based however on

my misunderstanding that this guy lived locally. It turns out he made

a special trip to this place from hours away to make a point, and

basically set him up.

To me, that is a jerk move.

You might say that the owner was a jerk for being culturally

insensitive by way of not recognizing this guy was no Russian sailor,

but if my place had been trashed repeatedly by "foreigners, " I'd be

done with the lot of them as well. It sounds like this bathhouse is

located at the end of the world, so maybe this owner isn't the most

savvy or "culturally sensitive" guy, but to make a special trip there

like this guy did and blow his horn about cultural injustice. Hey, get

a life. And whatever happened to "Management reserves the right to

refuse entry"? He may have been insensitive in his wording, but I

can't imagine a bathhouse owner in Buttville, Endoftheearth to be much

of a word man. Give the guy a break.

Obviously if this naturalized Japanese gaijin has gone through the

whole procedure of obtaining citizenship, then he must have been here

long enough to have some clue as to the lingering zenophobia in Japan,

but he chose to become one of them anyway. I don't get that.

I live in Japan, but I'm not necessarily a big fan of Japanese people

or the system here, which is why I don't apply for permanent residency

- even though I qualify for it. I occasionally complain about this

rule or that not making sense, but as far as being discriminated

against as a foreigner or being hard done by, I completely believe it

could be a lot worse. Perhaps Mr. Silver should see how welcome his

western idealism is in downtown Paris, which is also a first-world

country last time I checked.

And it's a fact there is violent crime being committed by specialist

crime groups entering Japan. I've seen it first hand as far back as 10

years ago working in a bar in Roppingi. Serious non-Japanese gang

activity, and 10 years later, it is 10 times worse. How do they keep

getting in? I've left and entered Japan dozens of times having lived

here 10yrs and constantly traveling abroad on business and pleasure,

and only once, yes once, have I been asked to open my suitcase upon

entering Japan. This, in comparison to when I return to Australia each

year to see family and being asked EVERY time to step out of line.

Don't get me wrong, I love not having to be bothered with opening

suitcases, but this laxed approach does leave me a bit suspicious of

what people ARE bringing into this country, and if this is a reflection

of immigration policy on the whole, equating to undisirable elements

making their way in...

The U.S and Australia don't make any excuses or apologies for it's

tough immigration and customs practices, so why should Japan - on Mr

Clark's point about foreign crime elements. What they could do is

spend less energy rooting out and detaining people who have overstayed

their visas - people who have lived here for years, assimilated, and

live meek and law-abiding existences, and transfer that energy into

stopping Chinese and Korean gangs making their way in. I think this

is a point you all overlook.

Everyone on this thread immediately figured Clark's foreigner crime

comments were referring to you, the humble English teacher in Gunma.

For you people, remember to look up when you're skiing, not down at

your feet. In case you don't get it, you can apply this to life as

well...

Morgan

Morgan and Mr. Clarke;

Comparisons to other countries like Korea are irrelevant. It is a poor

argument to defend one wrong by pointing out other, more serious

wrongs. As to the problems of ethnic Koreans and others, they have

their own organizations to fight for them. Debito is fighting for

himself, and for his children, and ultimately for Japan as a whole.

Let's cut through all the BS about definitions, culture, what have you.

Here is the scenario. Imagine you are with your family. Your family is

you (Japanese nationality, but born abroad), your wife (Japanese by

birth and blood) and your two children (also Japanese by birth and of

mixed heritage). You go to a public facility like a hotel, a spa, or a

golf club. The manager tells you that your wife and one child (who

looks more Japanese) can enter, but you and the child who resembles you

can not.

What would YOU do? What would you tell your children? I personally

admire Mr. Debito's restraint. In his position, I would have been

sorely tempted to kick the bejeezus out of whoever insulted my family

like that.

How about you? How would you handle the situation?

The Onsen case was not about race and not about nationality. It was

about appearance. Nationality was irrelevant, as a Japanese person was

excluded. Race was irrelevant as an ethnic Asian person (Chinese) was

excluded, but only after being revealed as Chinese.

Now, let's reverse the situation. The place is Toronto. I am a

restaurant owner, and have had trouble with some Vietnamese guests.

Noisy, rude, dont speak English. So, I decide to ban all foreigners

since just banning the Vietnamese would be unfair. Later, a Canadian

man of Chinese heritage comes in. I tell him to get lost because of my

trouble with the Vietnamese. He is puzzled because he isnt vietnamese

either by birth, heritage, or nationality. Yet still I refuse him. I

also throw out a Swedish family because I find out they are Swedish.

Previously, I thought they were pure Canadian and let them in, but when

they spoke they had strong accents.

See how ridiculous it becomes?

The whole idea that there is a "Japanese" look or way to do things or

attitude is inaccurate. An Okinawan has more in common with a Taiwanese

than with a Hokkaido farmer. Japan is diverse in social and economic

terms. Plus, ask anyone about the generation gap between youth and

adults!

Bottom line, IF Japan wants to be part of the international community,

then Japan has to start following the rules of that community, or risk

damage (both social and economic).

Dear DA: You miss the point.

No one is praising or endorsing the onsen owner for refusing entry to

Debito and one child. A more intelligent or discriminating owner would not

have behaved this way.

But we have to assume that the owner is not such a person. WE have to

assume he is just an ordinary Japanese going about his business and who

has suffered serious damage from allowing Russian seamen to use his bath

(damage which Debito-san strangely has chronicled). Worse, he is

beginning to lose his Japanese customers. Are you really surprised that he

wants to ban foreigners.

And having decided to ban foreigners he goes the whole hog and bans a few

people maybe he should not have banned.

If this was not an isolated case, then there may have been some point in

making an example of the man in the hope that this would stop the rot

elsewhere. But clearly it is a very isolated case, and may well have

involved some very narrow personality problems.

To make an international incident out of it all, and then to boast how one

has got in and shown those xenophobic Japanese how to behave is

outrageous, particularly when there are so many examples of the Japanese

people generally behaving with great courtesy and tolerance to foreigners,

or as Morgan has pointed out, with much less discrimination than one would

find in many other countries.

The Hamamatsu jewelry shop incident was similar , with the unfortunate

owner suffering continued shoplifting and other troubles from the

underclass Brazilians in the area and then deciding he had no choice but

to put up a sign banning Brazilians.

Incidentally I notice you have not told me when Debito-san will go out and

sue bath houses that discriminate against people with tattoes. A little

bit of consistency would go a long way in this debate.

Of course the world would be a better place if shop and bath owners could

have some way to tell in advance which customer will behave properly and

which will not. But they can't. They are in much the same position as

governments who feel they have little choice in their visa policies but to

decide that people of certain nationalities are more likely to cause

trouble than people of other nationalities.

Frankly I find the government behavior more reprehensible since with some

effort and expense they could do a much better job in deciding who should

get visas. But I notice that none of you do-gooders are willing to take

governments to court for their culturally discriminatory, or in your

terminology, blatantly racist, policies.

Landlords are in the same position. They cannot afford to wait till the

trouble has occurred and they are stuck with a tenant determined to trash

their premises before acting. They too have to decide in advance which

kind of tenant will cause trouble and which not. Obviously there will be

mistakes. But in most cases, shikata ga nai.

Frankly, I also feel sorry for the landlord who worries about the language

problem, in particular the ability of most foreigners to read contracts

and other notices.

True, if the landlord is receiving government funds for his business then

the right to discriminate becomes more difficult. But most are not in that

position.

True also, and as in any other country, there are people who dislike

foreigners per se, and not because of any trouble they may cause. What to

do about these people is a problem. But there is something in the

argument that since it is their country they have the right to say whom

they like and whom they don't. Or that one should simply deny them the

advantge of one's business. And Morgan's point remains: that if some of

you in the do-gooder camp had spent as much time travelling the world as

he has you would come to realise that Japan is one of the less

discriminatory nations.

In the list of torlerances to foreigners and intolerances to foreigners

that I have seen here over 30 years, the tolerances far outnumber the

intolerances. If you like the list I will give it to you, and it includes

some intolerances far worse they being refused entrance to a bathhouse

(ever been frogmarched from a political briefing just because you were a

foreigner?).

But I think I know enough about Japan and its culture to realise the

causes of both the intolerances and the tolerances. And in the context of

that culture, both make sense. Certainly I do not feel it is my job to go

out and change that culture. In many ways it has more to be said for it

than many Western cultures.

Like Morgan I have lived in enough foreign countries to be able make a

judgement. I often wonder how much the do-gooders know about the rest of

the world.

The unreality of the do-gooder side of the debate became apparent when I

gave the example of the Japanese landlord who refuses to take Japanese

tenants because Japanese have a culture that says contracts for housing

are not enforcable. So he preferred foreigners since they were more likely

to observe contracts. Here clearly no racial bias could have been

involved. Yet your side of the debate accused him of discrimination and me

of being equally guilty for accepting his contract. How unreal can you

get. I suppose the next thing you will suggest is that if someone clearly

bent on harm knocks at my door and wants to come in, I am also guilty of

discrimination for saying no.

Incidentally, this particular problem of rental contracts for a long time

was a major reason for the housing shortage here. House owners absent for

two-three year periods simply could not afford to rent out their houses to

fellow-Japanese because they had no guarantee they would get their house

back when they returned. Most just left their houses empty. I suppose you

will accuse them of discrimination too.

Mr. Clark;

Thank you for your reply, but you didnt answer my question. What would

YOU do in a similar position to Debito's? Turn around, bend over, and

grab your ankles? What would the appropriate response be?

These are NOT isolated incidents. They happen in a variety of places

all over Japan. Restaurants, pubs, onsen, hair salons, realtors, the

list is long.

The problem that business owners have (telling good from bad customers)

is legitimate. However, the way to solve the problem often is not.

Perhaps a rule forbidding drunken people of all races from entering?

Multilingual signs indicating rules and charges?

I think the issue of tattoos is not equivalent. Getting a tattoo is a

choice. One's physical appearance and ethnic background are NOT chosen.

Tattoos can often be hidden too.

The landlord in your example (not renting to Japanese) was wrong and

should be corrected.

Incidentally I notice you have not told me when Debito-san will go out

and

sue bath houses that discriminate against people with tattoes. A little

bit of consistency would go a long way in this debate.

----

As soon as you find someone who was born with their tatoo and is being

barred from an onsen for that reason, I'm sure Debito would take up

your suggestion.

----

if some of

you in the do-gooder camp had spent as much time travelling the world

he has you would come to realise that Japan is one of the less

discriminatory nations.

----

Every time I see the term 'do-gooder' used on this thread I get the

strange feeling I'm eight years old again, back on the elementary

school playground. Isn't that what happens when little kids get into

arguments? They resort to name calling.

Ryan

Dear Ryan: Tatoos are hard to remove and are usually put there for

non-yakuza purposes. Even so, bathowners feel entitled to ban them, simply

because they cause unease to other bathers. IE there is just the

possibility that the person with the tatoo could be a yakuza.

Similarly in Otaru. In a town where foreigners already have a reputation

for causing bathtub trouble, the presence of a foreigners or foreigners in

the bathtub, drunken ones especially, could also cause very considerable

unease to other bathers. If only for that reason a conservative bathowner

would feel entitled to ban.

But my real point is that to go after this one guy, who has his reasons,

even if somewhat exaggerated, and crow over it as a victory for forcing

Japan to be more international is silly. If anything it provides fuel for

those who want to keep foreigners, all foreigners, at bay at a time when

Japan badly needs to be more international and to have an immigration

policy.

On the Justice ministry immigration committee I could see just these mind

processes at work, in everything from trying to get rid of overstayers to

reluctance in accepting Filipino nurses. WE are seen as pesky, difficult

to assimilate, people. Debito-san could be a good example.

Those of us who have made it into Japan, and enjoy it here, should be a

lot more careful in trying to impose our values on the Japanese,

particularly when there is a lot at fault in our own values, including our

claimed internationalism. (The people out there saying they have to impose

democracy on Iraq think they are being international too.)

The Japanese have their own way for being international and tolerant to

foreigners, and many of their internationalisms and tolerances are a lot

better than what we find in our own societies. .

If the Otaru business was to make an example to bathowners elsewhere in

Japan who were barring foreigners even when there were no problems, then

just possibly it might have made sense. A principle would have been

established.

But the only sense I can see in all this is that it made the litigous

foreigner feel good about himself as a fighter for principle, even when no

real principle was involved.. Hence the term do-gooder. And you are

right, it does smack of the immaturity. I sense a lot of immaturity in

foreigners here trying to tell the Japanese how to behave in situations

where there is a reasonable rationale for the Japanese approach. The fuss

over renting property is another example.

Incidentally do-gooder is a lot less abusive than terms like 'apologist

for Japanese racism' that your side of the debate like to throw around.

> Regards to you Steve Silver, perhaps you could offer something more

> than "Define this word" or "Define this phrase".

I believe in my earlier posts, one can see I've offered much more.

> Apparently, you're

> some kind of assistant professor or the like (wondering if it's in

> English) and if so, why is it you're having so much trouble

> understanding basic English words and phrases?

It's a shame that educated people cannot have a reasoned debate about a serious issue without resorting to insults. Comments like these say much more about your character rather than or logic of your arguments, or my English proficiency, for that matter.

> It's easy to sit there and quote some figures you researched on the

> Jetro site, and then play the "descrimination isn't right" card, but

> I'm assuming Mr. Clark is drawing on over 35 years of living in Japan

> and the various and not innumerous commitees he sits on.

Classic ad hominem attacks. Having 35 years in the field and belonging to committees does not make one impervious to criticism regarding her or his statements. It is quite unfortunate that Mr. Clark and you have resorted to personal attacks in an attempt to support your arguments.

> This I have

> gathered from reading his website thoroughly and getting an idea of the

> man. Perhaps you should, too.

I've also read his website and several of his articles (many of which I agree with, some of which I don't), as well as interviews with him. From the way you and he have conducted yourselves on this discussion group, I believe we have a pretty good idea about the character of Mr. Clark as well as your own.

Steve

[email protected] writes:

>Mr. Clark.

>Thanks again for taking the time to post here. I am sure your schedule

>is much busier than mine. Still, I would like to know;

>1/ What would YOU have done in Mr. Debito's situation, being banned

>from a public facility and also having your children split up and

>banned or allowed to enter based on their physical appearance? I have

>yet to hear your answer.

>I am sad to say that, were it to happen to me and my son, I would be

>sorely tempted to kick the onsen owners' teeth in.

If I was the owner I would have thrown them all out, for trying to use my

premises and my time to make a political statement. As for Mr D., he

should have gone off and done something to educate Russian seaman, or even

better, build his own bathhouse open to all and see the results for

himself.

>2/ What is wrong with bathowners merely barring drunken people of ALL

>nationalities from the premises? Dont you think this is a more

>constructive solution?

Have you ever operated a premise where only drunks are barred? They try

to do this in Roppongi, and need some very strong bouncers at the door to

handle the fights.

>I notice you often spend time talking about 'the Japanese way' of being

>international. Could you elaborate on that and describe what exactly it

>is?

It is 'international' in the sense that many of the 'principled ' barriers

to foreigners found in other societies - eg bans on purchase of property,

some visa policies, resistance to inflow of foreign ideas and culture,

lack of concessions to non-language speakers etc - are not found in Japan.

Many foreign visitors are also surprised by the courtesty they receive.

True, the Japanese can create 'instinctive' barriers at times, but unlike

'principled' barriers, they can be got round.

>The problem is unfortunately getting bigger. Now, some hotels are

>starting to ban foreigners, in blatant disregard for Japanese law. A

>group of students from an International School and their teacher were

>also rejected by a different onsen in Hokkaido, in spite of the fact

>that ALL had lived in Japan for a number of years, spoke the language

>well, and fully understood bathing customs.

If people are getting anti-foreign as you mention, without cause, then

there is a cause for concern. But why only in Hokkaido? (we do not see it

in Honshu) Could it be a reaction to the excessive zeal of Mr D and

others?

>The "litigous foreigner" you mention is a shibboleth. Legal action was

>the last resort of Mr. Debito, NOT the first. As I am sure you know,

>lawsuits in Japan are time consuming, expensive, and rarely successful.

>However, on occasion they are necessary.

>I see nothing immature in a man who is trying to make a better country

>for his children to grow up in, where they can be accepted for who they

>are and not what they are. Why do you?

See above.

PS I have raised two bilingual, bicultural children in Japan without

problem. I find this country a lot better than many others in this regard.

Gregory Clark

Head, Research Japan Office

S603 Ark Hills Executive Tower

1-14-5 Akasaka

Minato-ku, Tokyo

107-0052

Tel: 03-3586-4147

Fax: 03-3586-4148

www.gregoryclark.net

www.gregoryclark.net/nakadaki

Mr. Clark.

You asserted that Debito should have "done something" to educate the

Russian sailors. He did. He worked with the town to print leaflets in

Russian to distribute to the incoming ships which indicated Japanese

customs, bathing etiquette, etc. The town refused to print enough to

distribute. He also set up a hotline where business owners could call

to get help when dealing with foreign clients. The line was never

answered.

The business I mentioned that are now banning foreign guests ARE in

Honshu. The hotel mentioned is actually in Tokyo. It is the Hotel

Tsubakuro in Shibuya. An optical shop in Kobe did the same thing to an

American customer. In Nagoya (my home), my presence in several bars

was not wanted. Not dirty or crass places, just regular pubs and

watering holes. In Shizuoka, both karaoke shops and pubs refuse foreign

clients. As to your point about it being difficult to refuse entry to

drunken people, it may be hard in a bar or nightclub, but a public

bath? Come on. Plus, common sense dictates that refusing drunkards

and refusing a family with two small children are totally different

situations.

Just to clarify, if you were treated as Debito and his family were, you

would leave quietly and try to educate Russian sailors, or whoever else

created the atmosphere of prejudice that tainted you. Am I correct?

I think part of the problem is that Japan is more than willing to

accept foreign visitors, but not foreign residents. As you point out,

Japanese are generally gracious and patient hosts. However, the concept

that foreign people may actually want to live here long term causes a

great deal of consternation and discomfort in the locals. They have

not learned to deal with foreign residents without seeing them as

"other" or as "temporary visitor". People are often genuinely shocked

when I tell them that I plan to make my home here and raise my family

here.

[email protected] writes:

>Mr. Clark.

>You asserted that Debito should have "done something" to educate the

>Russian sailors. He did. He worked with the town to print leaflets in

>Russian to distribute to the incoming ships which indicated Japanese

>customs, bathing etiquette, etc. The town refused to print enough to

>distribute. He also set up a hotline where business owners could call

>to get help when dealing with foreign clients. The line was never

>answered.

I am aware of these activities.

What I was suggesting was that he personally sent down to the Otaru

wharves (as I have done) and talked to seaman, or handed out his leaflets

instead of leaving everything to the town.

I think that if had enough Russian to talk to these seaman he would have

begun to understand the bathhouse owners problems.

>The business I mentioned that are now banning foreign guests ARE in

>Honshu. The hotel mentioned is actually in Tokyo. It is the Hotel

>Tsubakuro in Shibuya. An optical shop in Kobe did the same thing to an

>American customer. In Nagoya (my home), my presence in several bars

>was not wanted. Not dirty or crass places, just regular pubs and

>watering holes. In Shizuoka, both karaoke shops and pubs refuse foreign

>clients.

If these exclusions are happening without reason, ie obnoxious or

crime-minded foreigners are not to be found in these areas, then maybe it

is time to throw the law books at them. I personally would prefer just to

ignore them. But I can see how more principled people would be inclined

to do something.

My objection has been to pestering people who have reason to bar

foreigners.

> As to your point about it being difficult to refuse entry to

>drunken people, it may be hard in a bar or nightclub, but a public

>bath? Come on. Plus, common sense dictates that refusing drunkards

>and refusing a family with two small children are totally different

>situations.

With due respect, your side of the debate has a constant tendency to

confuse issues.

An earlier example: I made my point about Otaru, and then went on to say

that excessive zeal in these cases might encourage more anti-foreigner

feling among Japan's nationalists.

In reply I was told that I was arguing that because the nationalists would

get upset, nothing should be done about Otaru. But I had already given my

reasons, very different reasons, for why nothing should have been done

about Otaru.

This deliberate confusion of argument is very unpleasant, and not worthy

of people who claim and seem to want to be standing for truth and justice.

You have now done just the same. WE begin with the problem of drunken

foreigners. I go on to say that it very hard to single out drunks, so a

ban on all foreigners is understandable (especially since in this case

even sober Russian seamen could be doing unpleasant things in the bath).

You then come back at me with your statement above - that I am saying the

problem of drunks should mean banning foreign family members, ignoring the

vital step in my argument, namely the difficulty of singling out drunks.

Why do you people do these things? It is not worthy of people who seem

genuinely to be acting on principle.

>Just to clarify, if you were treated as Debito and his family were, you

>would leave quietly and try to educate Russian sailors, or whoever else

>created the atmosphere of prejudice that tainted you. Am I correct?

IF I had gone there deliberately to make a political statement and

embarass the bathhouse owner, I would expect even worse treatment.

And if I felt so strongly about the politics of it all, then I would not

be out there pestering suffering bathowners (was this the same owner that

D-san happily reported had suffered 800,000 yen's damage from a drunken

Russian?). I would do something about the kagai-sha rather than the

higai-sha - the damage causers rather than the damage victims.

>I think part of the problem is that Japan is more than willing to

>accept foreign visitors, but not foreign residents. As you point out,

>Japanese are generally gracious and patient hosts. However, the concept

>that foreign people may actually want to live here long term causes a

>great deal of consternation and discomfort in the locals. They have

>not learned to deal with foreign residents without seeing them as

>"other" or as "temporary visitor". People are often genuinely shocked

>when I tell them that I plan to make my home here and raise my family

>here.

These are very good points. And I believe there is a very good cultural

reason for this. AS I noted earlier in these posts (and have written

extensively elsewhere) the Japanese, for good historical reasons, have a

familial or what I call tribal value systme.

One aspect of this is willingness to accept the ideas of foreigners.

Another is to treat them with great courtesy when they come to visit. But

another is to take it for granted that while the outsider is welcome as a

visitor, there is something slightly absurd about he or she wanting to be

a member of the Japanese 'family' or

tribe.'

Come to think of it, we all behave in the same way in our own families. I

assume you would see it as rather absurd if I was to demand the right to

be a member of your family. Is there anything wrong with a people

escalating familial values to the level of nation?

I agree that the Japanese approach to foreigners is not very

international, in the sense that it is very different from what we find in

most other advanced societies. But it is the basis of their national

identity. Are we supposed to tell people they have got their national

identity wrong? I myself happen to believe that it is an acceptable

basis, at least as acceptable as ours. What's more, it leads to a great

many pluses - the work and honesty ethics for one. (There are negatives

too eg emotional Japanese foreign policies and ugly nationalism).

Rather they try to force the Japanese to change their identity and value

system, I would concentrate on trying to do something about the negatives

I mentioned above. And clearly I do not rate the bathhouse incident as a

negative. On the contrary, I see the litigous Western reaction to the

incident as one of the negatives in our way of doing things.

Maturity lies in realising that there are usually pluses and minuses in

every social system, including one's own.

Gregory Clark

> So calling someone a serious anti-Nihonjin-ron scholar is calling someone

> an idiot?

No, sir, calling someone "dumb" is calling someone an idiot.

Steve

Hello again.

>From what I can get of your position, you feel that situations where

foreigners are too vociferous in demanding their rights will provoke a

backlash from the nationalist element in Japan, which will ultimately

do more harm than the original problem. Am I getting close here?

I would say in response that the nationalists dont need any more

excuses- they will make them up as necessary regardless of what the

'foreign community' actually does. Frankly, I dont care if it DOES

encourage more anti foreigner sentiment in the lunatic fringes. It

might do some good for those maggots to be dragged into the sunlight.

IMHO, the majority of Japanese would side with Mr. Arudo on this issue,

particularly given his family situation. Hardly any ammo for the black

truck boys there.

As to the tribal or family side of Japanese culture, you say that it

would be ridiculous for you to try to join my family. Perhaps that is

right. But, if you were to marry my sister and show respect/interest in

her relatives, you would be more than welcome to join. Families

stretch to accomodate new members, either by birth or by marriage.

Plus again, it leaves the question of mixed heritage people totally out

of the equation. Are they 'family' (to the Japanese) or not? This

tribal view is one thing that is destined for change in Japan in the

future. It is inevitable, since Japan can no longer control infuences

from the outside world. The Edo era of insulation is over. The Japan

that used to take information or cultural attributes from other nations

and make them "Japanese" is no longer viable in the modern age of

computers and global communication. Guys like Debito are just kicking

a tree that is in the process of falling.

[email protected] writes:

>Hello again.

>>From what I can get of your position, you feel that situations where

>foreigners are too vociferous in demanding their rights will provoke a

>backlash from the nationalist element in Japan, which will ultimately

>do more harm than the original problem. Am I getting close here?

Let's amend that to 'demanding their alleged rights in situations where in

fact they do not have rights.'

>I would say in response that the nationalists dont need any more

>excuses- they will make them up as necessary regardless of what the

>'foreign community' actually does. Frankly, I dont care if it DOES

>encourage more anti foreigner sentiment in the lunatic fringes. It

>might do some good for those maggots to be dragged into the sunlight.

>IMHO, the majority of Japanese would side with Mr. Arudo on this issue,

>particularly given his family situation. Hardly any ammo for the black

>truck boys there.

>As to the tribal or family side of Japanese culture, you say that it

>would be ridiculous for you to try to join my family. Perhaps that is

>right. But, if you were to marry my sister and show respect/interest in

>her relatives, you would be more than welcome to join. Families

>stretch to accomodate new members, either by birth or by marriage.

>Plus again, it leaves the question of mixed heritage people totally out

>of the equation. Are they 'family' (to the Japanese) or not? This

>tribal view is one thing that is destined for change in Japan in the

>future. It is inevitable, since Japan can no longer control infuences

>from the outside world. The Edo era of insulation is over. The Japan

>that used to take information or cultural attributes from other nations

>and make them "Japanese" is no longer viable in the modern age of

>computers and global communication. Guys like Debito are just kicking

>a tree that is in the process of falling.

Japan is now quite relaxed about what it calls 'international marriage.' I

have one, and have never had any trouble. But I do not see that as any

reason to want Japanese nationality. I am not Japanese, I do not share

their mentality, and I would regard it as rather absurd to go round

calling myself Japanese.

But that aside, the Japanese 'familial' approach to nationality (in the

past the Japanese even used to demand foreigners taking Japanese

nationality to take Japanese names) has its own validities. I see the

attempt to force on Japan the Western approach to nationality (i.e. as

soon as I have the necessary documents, I am a full member of whatever

nation I care to join) as yet another proof of gaijin arrogance towards

Japan.

You might be right about the difficulty of Japan maintaining its cultural

identity in an international age. But that identity, for all its faults,

has some important things to tell the rest of us - its instinctive work

loyalty and honesty ethics, for example. To gloat over the demise of that

identity is yet another proof of how we Westerners automatically assume

that our culture is superior to others.

Gregory Clark

Interesting answer, thank you. I actually agree with you on most

points. I am also in an internaitonal marriage, as are many people ,as

is our friend Debito. For him, and us I think, the key is to make

Japan a better place for our children.

I do wonder about this statement, though;

"Let's amend that to 'demanding their alleged rights in situations

where in

fact they do not have rights.' "

The UN would disagree with you. As Japan has signed various

international agreements that safeguard human rights (race, origin,

etc), it appears that Japan is in the wrong. This is the key. By

international law and treaty, we (he) has rights. By local standard, he

does not. In this case, it is incumbent upon Japan to amend local

standards to conform to international ones. Japan agreed to do this by

signing up to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, etc, but has not

followed through.

The problem is that, for many of us western types, we see nationality

as a social or political construct. Japanese often see it as a 'blood'

thing. It leads to a strange situation where a person can be a Japanese

citizen but still not be quote unquote Japanese. For Debito, people

would say something like, "well, technically he is Japanese, but REALLY

he isnt....." It is a conundrum.

[email protected] writes:

>Interesting answer, thank you. I actually agree with you on most

>points. I am also in an internaitonal marriage, as are many people ,as

>is our friend Debito. For him, and us I think, the key is to make

>Japan a better place for our children.

And thank you for your comments. It has forced me to clarify my own

thinking, and understand the position of others.

>I do wonder about this statement, though;

>"Let's amend that to 'demanding their alleged rights in situations

>where in

>fact they do not have rights.' "

>The UN would disagree with you. As Japan has signed various

>international agreements that safeguard human rights (race, origin,

>etc), it appears that Japan is in the wrong. This is the key. By

>international law and treaty, we (he) has rights. By local standard, he

>does not. In this case, it is incumbent upon Japan to amend local

>standards to conform to international ones. Japan agreed to do this by

>signing up to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, etc, but has not

>followed through.

Nowhere in the world would shop owners be obliged to open their premises

to people whom they suspected would cause harm, UN convention or no

convention. The argument then boils down to deciding how they are

entitled to decide who is likely to cause harm. I have sympathy for the

way the Otaru and Hamamatsu people decided. You do not. Let's leave it

at that.

>The problem is that, for many of us western types, we see nationality

>as a social or political construct. Japanese often see it as a 'blood'

>thing. It leads to a strange situation where a person can be a Japanese

>citizen but still not be quote unquote Japanese. For Debito, people

>would say something like, "well, technically he is Japanese, but REALLY

>he isnt....." It is a conundrum.

Other people use what you call the 'blood' criterion, the Germans and the

Chinese for example. With the Japanese though I suspect it goes beyond

blood to some concept of Japanese culture. For example, Japan makes far

less effort than China in creating a diaspora of overseas citizens. It

seems to feel that once they have left the Japanese 'family' they begin to

belong somewhere else.

Gregory Clark

Head, Research Japan Office

S603 Ark Hills Executive Tower

1-14-5 Akasaka

Minato-ku, Tokyo

107-0052

Tel: 03-3586-4147

Fax: 03-3586-4148

www.gregoryclark.net

www.gregoryclark.net/nakadaki

Mr. Clarke, you said that "Nowhere in the world would shop owners be

obliged to open their premises to people whom they suspected would

cause harm, UN convention or no convention."

You are probably right. But what harm was Debito and his 2 daughters

going to cause? That is the question.

Unfortunately, businesses that are open to the public are just that,

open to THE PUBLIC. Not just the part of the public that they like.

Private clubs are another matter, but businesses have more

responsibility. Can you imagine opening a restaurant in, say,

Australia, and saying "no abos or blacks allowed"? Justified because

the crime rate of aborigal people is higher than the general populace,

or at least it is perceived as being higher. It is the same

situation.

Discrimination based on looks is really hard to swallow. Not even on

race, just on appearance. Imagine your children, for example. One is

accepted into a business and the other is not, based on their

appearance. Not on their behavior, just because of which parent they

resemble. This is the key to the problem. It seems you feel there is

a logical justification for it, based on past behavior of certain

rotten apples. I say that the leap of logic required to equate a

drunken Russian sailor to a 9 year old half white/half Japanese girl is

going too far.

[email protected] writes:

>Mr. Clarke, you said that "Nowhere in the world would shop owners be

>obliged to open their premises to people whom they suspected would

>cause harm, UN convention or no convention."

>You are probably right. But what harm was Debito and his 2 daughters

>going to cause? That is the question.

Do we have to go into all this again? The owner had identified certain

foreign people as doing harm to his business. Since he felt he was unable

to set out to discriminate against just those people, he put up his sign

banning all foreign people. Maybe not the most sensitive way of handling

the problem. But were any of the do-gooders willing to help him solve it

in some other way? A resounding NO.

As for the public place argument, it is not really public unless it is

getting public funds. But that aside, I assume you are equally upset about

the ban on tatoos in public bathhouses (including some that do get public

funds). Of the ban on giving visas to certain classes of Chinese. etc

etc.

>Unfortunately, businesses that are open to the public are just that,

>open to THE PUBLIC. Not just the part of the public that they like.

>Private clubs are another matter, but businesses have more

>responsibility. Can you imagine opening a restaurant in, say,

>Australia, and saying "no abos or blacks allowed"? Justified because

>the crime rate of aborigal people is higher than the general populace,

>or at least it is perceived as being higher. It is the same

>situation.

>Discrimination based on looks is really hard to swallow. Not even on

>race, just on appearance. Imagine your children, for example. One is

>accepted into a business and the other is not, based on their

>appearance. Not on their behavior, just because of which parent they

>resemble. This is the key to the problem. It seems you feel there is

>a logical justification for it, based on past behavior of certain

>rotten apples. I say that the leap of logic required to equate a

>drunken Russian sailor to a 9 year old half white/half Japanese girl is

>going too far.

Gregory Clark

Head, Research Japan Office

S603 Ark Hills Executive Tower

1-14-5 Akasaka

Minato-ku, Tokyo

107-0052

Tel: 03-3586-4147

Fax: 03-3586-4148

www.gregoryclark.net

www.gregoryclark.net/nakadaki

To tell you the truth, most of the problems in the onsen case were

caused by the city, not by the onsens themselves. As to whether or not

Debito tried to help the situation you should judge for yourself. Do

some reading into what happened.

AFter being refused, he consulted the local onsen association. They had

no official policy on the matter.

AFter that, he consulted the city of Otaru. Meetings were held to

discuss the situation of foreign discrimination in general, but no

foreign people were allowed to attend. The meetings were private, not

public. A request that the city sponsor legislation to combat

discrimination is refused. Onsen owners also boycotted the meetings.

The city finally published multilingual bathing guides for the onsens

to use to help foreign customers. the onsen refused to display them.

The city also published a grand total of 4000 flyers to distribute to

visiting Russian sailors, even though more than 30,000 Russians visit

each year.

In the end, a lawsuit was the only thing that got their attention.

However, it was a last resort, filed after more than 3 years of trying

to solve the situation through cooperation.

As to the issue of tattoos, personally I think it is pretty stupid both

a/ to get a tattoo unless you are in the Royal Navy, and b/ to

discriminate against people who choose this form of expression.

However, getting a tattoo is a personal choice, not something you are

born with (like race). So the comparison is not really valid, do you

think? Also, people often simply cover their tattoos with bandages.

when they go to an onsen. It is hard to cover one's ethnicity.

Excerpts from the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (accession signified by Japan in 14 Jan 96)

Full text can be found at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_icerd.htm

Article 1

1. In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

Article 2

1. States Parties condemn racial discrimination and undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and promoting understanding among all races, and, to this end:

(d) Each State Party shall prohibit and bring to an end, by all appropriate means, including legislation as required by circumstances, racial discrimination by any persons, group or organization

...

Article 5

In compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of this Convention, States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights:

(f) The right of access to any place or service intended for use by the general public, such as transport, hotels, restaurants, cafes, theatres and parks.

---------

Japanese Constitution

(Full version can be found at http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Japan/English/english-Constitution.html)

Article 14: All of the people are equal under the law and there shall be no discrimination in political, economic or social relations because of race, creed, sex, social status or family origin.

*****

Note: I find no exceptions provided based on past experiences with particular racial or ethnic groups. I also find no reference to tattoos.

*****

Steve

Dear DS: It seems that the city was simply acting on the basis of what

the onsen owners wanted, and what a lot of local bathhouse visitors

wanted. So there is no need to separate the two.

I was surprised that the city even went to the trouble of distributing

flyers. As I say, if you people felt there was a problem it should have

been up to you to go and talk to the Russian seamen, ideally in their own

language, to see if the problem could be solved. I did that, on the wharf

near the Mycal store, and my conclusion was that it could not easily be

solved, even with 30,000 flyers. Did any of you guys make the same effort?

The tattoo issue is very relevant. The banning is because other customers

feel uneasy, regardless of whether the tattooed person is a gangster or

not. The owners have a responsibility to make their customers happy, not

the guy with the tattoo. Putting a bandage on makes it even worse. Who

wants to take a bath with someone who might have a dangerous infection.

I mention this because I once had an identical situation, taking a gaijin

colleague who had a tattoo and who was refused. Explaining he came from a

country where tattoos were normal made no difference. Both I and he

accepted the exclusion decision.

This business of Mr D having Japanese nationality is irrelevant. If you

look like a foreigner, talk like a foreigner, walk like a foreigner and in

particular argue and harrangue in the same pesky way some foreigners like,

then you are a foreigner. IN a town where people have had good reason not

to welcome foreigners in their bathtubs, his exclusion is not

unreasonable. The fact that it was based on nationality rather than a

tattoo (ever tried to have a tattoo removed prior to going to a

bathhouse?) is irrelevant, except to people who have this obsession about

people being judged by what you call 'race' (actually it is not 'race,' it

is 'assumed cultural group') rather than by any other criterion. And

waving one's passport in the bathtub to prove one is Japanese won't help

either. It might get wet.

All sorts of exclusions and discriminations go on in any society, and many

of them are crueller for the recipient than a discrimination based on the

assumption that you share the values of a particular cultural group, and

those values are not welcome or cause unease to people of another cultural

group.

I notice none of you try to answer the really unkind 'racial'

discrimination, namely refusing visas to Chinese who have a real need to

come to Japan - a need far more pressing than getting into someone's

bathtub.

> And having decided to ban foreigners he goes the whole hog and bans a few

> people maybe he should not have banned.

> If this was not an isolated case, then there may have been some point in

> making an example of the man in the hope that this would stop the rot

> elsewhere. But clearly it is a very isolated case, and may well have

> involved some very narrow personality problems.

It's not an isolated case. Entire neighborhoods of Sapporo are closed to foreigners, and it has been documented recently in the Japan Times that many Japanese businesses refused foreigners entry during the World Cup in 2002. Other incidents have also been documented throughout Japan, not just where there are large concentrations of Russian sailors. (Japan Times, Jan. 2004) I think if Mr. Clark were to talk to a few black individuals living in Japan, he would quickly come to realize this.

> To make an international incident out of it all, and then to boast how one

> has got in and shown those xenophobic Japanese how to behave is

> outrageous, particularly when there are so many examples of the Japanese

> people generally behaving with great courtesy and tolerance to foreigners,

> or as Morgan has pointed out, with much less discrimination than one would

> find in many other countries.

I think Mr. Clark is the last person who should lecture others about courtesy and tolerance.

> Of course the world would be a better place if shop and bath owners could

> have some way to tell in advance which customer will behave properly and

> which will not. But they can't.

> Landlords are in the same position. They cannot afford to wait till the

> trouble has occurred and they are stuck with a tenant determined to trash

> their premises before acting.

In other words, Mr. Clark is stating that by looking at one's skin color, we can make an accurate determination as to her or his inclination to behave properly. Mr. Clark is saying that one's inclination to destroy property can be based on an individual's race / ethnicity or nationality, and that banning an entire race or ethnicity of people is justified. If that isn't being an apologist for racism, then I really do not know how to define it.

It comes down to this: does Mr. Clark believe, as Dr. King said, that people should be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character? It seems clear which side he falls on.

> They too have to decide in advance which

> kind of tenant will cause trouble and which not.

Based on credit history, personal references, past rental history, of course. Based on race/ethnicity or nationality, no. It's counter to both the UN CERD and the Japanese constitution. He may be a die-hard supporter of racial discrimination and segregation, but it's not congruent with international and Japanese constitutional law.

> True, if the landlord is receiving government funds for his business then

> the right to discriminate becomes more difficult. But most are not in that

> position.

The UN CERD does not define public places as only those receiving government funds. I suppose Mr. Clark would also find it acceptable that many burakamin are ghettoized due to the fact that landlords will not rent to them and employers will not hire them.

> In the list of torlerances to foreigners and intolerances to foreigners

> that I have seen here over 30 years, the tolerances far outnumber the

> intolerances. If you like the list I will give it to you, and it includes

> some intolerances far worse they being refused entrance to a bathhouse

> (ever been frogmarched from a political briefing just because you were a

> foreigner?).

Again, this goes to the faulty logic that since Japan is better off than many other countries, then its racial discrimination should be tolerated. Mr. Clark fails to understand that one can love a country, its culture, and its people, yet at the same time seek to improve it and make it better. It is all or nothing to him -- one must accept it completely or leave. If have the flu, do I refuse to take medicine because it could be a lot worse if I had terminal lung cancer? If a woman is robbed, does that mean she shouldn't go to the police, because, after all, she could have been raped or even murdered?

Mr. Clark is also working for change within the Japanese system, such as with immigration policy -- and rightly so. Is he suggesting that we should criticize him for his efforts because things could be a lot worse? Of course things could be worse. Things could always be worse. That doesn't mean we should seek improvement.

> The unreality of the do-gooder side of the debate became apparent when I

> gave the example of the Japanese landlord who refuses to take Japanese

> tenants because Japanese have a culture that says contracts for housing

> are not enforcable. So he preferred foreigners since they were more likely

> to observe contracts. Here clearly no racial bias could have been

> involved.

> Yet your side of the debate accused him of discrimination and me

> of being equally guilty for accepting his contract. How unreal can you

> get. I suppose the next thing you will suggest is that if someone clearly

> bent on harm knocks at my door and wants to come in, I am also guilty of

> discrimination for saying no.

Was Mr. Clark forced to live in this apartment? Did someone come knocking on his door and force him to move there? Forgive me, but I fail to see the logic in this argument. He said he wouldn't give merchants who put "No foreigners" signs his business, but he had no problem living in a racially exclusive apartment himself. Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

> I was surprised that the city even went to the trouble of distributing

> flyers. As I say, if you people felt there was a problem it should have

> been up to you to go and talk to the Russian seamen, ideally in their own

> language, to see if the problem could be solved. I did that, on the wharf

> near the Mycal store, and my conclusion was that it could not easily be

> solved, even with 30,000 flyers. Did any of you guys make the same effort?

I think that was a good thing of him to do, and I am sure it was appreciated. That being said, the problem is not limited to Otaru, or to Hokkaido, or to bathhouses. If he talked to any black person living anywhere in Japan, he may understand. Then again, if he truly believes that one can be judged based on the color of her or skin, then it probably wouldn't make a difference.

> The tattoo issue is very relevant.

No, it's not. Can he point to where in the UN CERD or the Japanese constitution it mentions banning someone based on tattoos is defined as racial discrimination? Last time I checked, there was no mention of tattoos.

> I mention this because I once had an identical situation, taking a gaijin

> colleague who had a tattoo and who was refused. Explaining he came from a

> country where tattoos were normal made no difference. Both I and he

> accepted the exclusion decision.

Excluding those with tattoos is not racial discrimination. Excluding someone because s/he is white/black/not-Japanese-looking is racial discrimination.

> This business of Mr D having Japanese nationality is irrelevant.

I don't disagree with him on that point. There is nothing in the UN CERD or the Japanese constitution that limits racial discrimination in public places to non-citizens. However, what it did make clear is that the owner was banning him purely on the basis of his race/ethnicity rather than any other factor.

> If you

> look like a foreigner, talk like a foreigner, walk like a foreigner and in

> particular argue and harrangue in the same pesky way some foreigners like,

> then you are a foreigner.

Is this somewhere in Japanese law? If this were true, then why does the Japanese government grant citizenship to those of non-Japanese ancestry? Is Mr. Clark aware of something in Japanese law that we are not? Or does he want to do away with the system of naturalized citizenship altogether?

> All sorts of exclusions and discriminations go on in any society, and many

> of them are crueller for the recipient than a discrimination based on the

> assumption that you share the values of a particular cultural group, and

> those values are not welcome or cause unease to people of another cultural

> group.

Banning an individual from a public establishment based on her or his race, ethnicity, or creed is not legal under both the UN CERD, which the Japanese agreed to, and the Japanese constitution. Is Mr. Clark suggesting that Japan abdicate from the CERD and eliminate this article from their constitution?

> I notice none of you try to answer the really unkind 'racial'

> discrimination, namely refusing visas to Chinese who have a real need to

> come to Japan - a need far more pressing than getting into someone's

> bathtub.

Same criticism was made of Dr. King and black leaders in the 50s and 60s when they conducted bus boycotts and lunch counter sit-ins. Many church leaders and even some black leaders complained that Dr. King was either trying to go too far, too fast, or that he was concentrating on relatively trivial issues instead of much more important issues, such as murder, destruction of property, and intimidation. Many also made the same argument as you did that these efforts were hampering other efforts at stopping murder and terrorism against blacks in the South. Many claimed it was fueling further anger and resentment against blacks. A good document to read is Dr. King's letter from a Montgomery jail where he responds to this criticism.

I don't think anyone is denying that there are many countries with much more serious issues than getting into a bathhouse. I also don't think anyone is denying that there are serious issues in Japan that are also worthy of attention. However, Mr. Clark the argument that because there are larger issues than the bathhouses, or there are other countries that have it much worse, then nothing should be done about the bathhouses and other forms of racial discrimination. Mr. Clark has gone further and made his point clear that he feels racial discrimination is justified in certain circumstances, and that racial discrimination should exist in a free and democratic society. Mr. Clark seems to be arguing for the position that Japan should either ignore or abdicate from international agreements and its own constitution. I don't think that would be good for Japan as a free and democratic society or the people who live and work here.

He also seems to suggest that wanting to affect change within a society is akin to some sort of betrayal. Yet he (and rightly so) is fighting to change the immigration policies of the Japanese government, among other policies. I think many of us support him in these efforts, and we would certainly not consider it some sort of betrayal of Japanese culture. It seems he and Mr. Arudou have a lot more in common that he may think -- both of them are fighting for change in a society which both of them care about and have a deep investment in. He may see Mr. Arudou's effort as trivial, but again, many felt the same about the bus boycotts and the sit-ins 40 years ago. I think it is clear how history has judged those efforts. We will see how history will judge Mr. Arudou's effots -- and Mr. Clark's as well.

The sign said no foreigners, and short of examining everyone's ancestry

the only criterion is how people look.

For God's sake, are there not more important things in the world to worry

about than a long-suffering, probably less than totally worldly,

bathhouse owner's off-the-cuff emotional reaction to a rikutsupoi gaijin

not interested in having a bath but simply trying to use his family to

make a political statement?

Actually, I think the bathhouse guy did quite well. In effect he said, OK

buster, if you want to make your statement, then I will make my mine, by

letting in only the ones who meet my criteria.

As I said earlier, if I was in his position my reaction would have been a

lot stronger.

>(ever tried to have a tattoo removed prior to going to a

> bathhouse?)

Every tried to have an 'assumed cultural identity' put on?

Ryan

For God's sake, are there not more important things in the world to

worry

about than a long-suffering, probably less than totally worldly,

bathhouse owner's off-the-cuff emotional reaction to a rikutsupoi

gaijin

not interested in having a bath but simply trying to use his family to

make a political statement?

-----

Are there not more things to worry about than the subjects of all the

books and articles you've written? Much of what you write is very

intelligent and then you come out with dribble like this. Makes me

wonder if the same person is really writing.

Ryan

The more I listen to you guys the more I am convinced that you really do

suffer from a serious case of racial arrogance towards the Japanese.

IN this case for two reasons.

One is the refusal to consider the psychology of a very ordinary Japanese

whose business has already suffered serious physical damage from

foreigners, and who is confronted by yet another one of them, this time

determined to get into an moralistic argument.

The other is the refusal to debate anything that contradicts your own

preconceived ideas about Japan and its people. If you think something is

dribble, give your own reasons and arguments.

Talking of dribble, that reminds me of the guy who pees in his pants. He

gets a nice warm feeling in the process, but to the rest of the world he

looks fairly silly. People who use insults rather than arguments get a

nice warm feeling too. But to others they do not appear quite as heroic.

Dear DS: Once again, thank you for your considered rebuttals. Some of

them are food for thought.

But I have already made it clear that I object to organised or systematic

discrimination against people. The burakumin issue would be a good

example, if the government was not taking such strong steps to stamp out

the problem and some of the burakumin themselves were not so keen to

segregate themselves from Japanese society.

What I object to is the way very particular examples of justified

discrimination are turned into moralistic rants, with no consideration for

the motives of the discriminators.

Even if the motives are less than pure, provided the problem is restricted

to particular individuals who have psychological hangups, I do not feel it

is an issue, unless there is some danger of it becoming systematic and

organised. This tolerance is justified in Japan where the attitudes to

foreigners while at times unpleasant are much more often to foreigner

advantage.

And sometimes, even if the discrimination is systematic and organised it

is inevitable. Visa policies are a good example.

Someone raised discrimination against aborigines in Australia as an issue.

Here is a good example of where the moralists get it wrong (Bosnia and

Kosovo were other examples).

There had long been a drinking and violence problem of aborigines, and

there had been some drink and access prohibition discriminations as a

result. Under the Hawke government, the moralists took control and forbade

any discrimination. The result a generation later is the complete

degeneration of the black community in many country towns.

The present government has sensibly brought in policies that seek to

separate black and white communities to some extent so the blacks can

recover some of the former pride and culture, and to curb the drink

problem through prohibition. Once again the moralists are up in arms.

Discrimination and segregation? Yes. Commonsense? A very definite yes.

AS with the Russian seamen or Brazilian shoplifting problem, when I see

the moralists getting in there on the ground and trying to get rid of the

problems that caused the prohibitions in the first place, I would respect

them, particularly if they can get results. But they do not. They prefer

to remain on their pulpits, occasionally coming down to persecute some

particular individual they see as guilty.

In many Japanese towns there are groups that try to help introduce

foreigners to Japanese society and solve cultural problems, especially

over accommodation. I do not see many of the moralists in these groups.

They prefer to remain in the pulpits, hurling down fire and damnation upon

the sinners.Racial arrogance? Very probably.

This insult and non-sequiter problem is part of the arrogance - poeple who

are so sure of their correctitude they feel they do not even have to

bother to argue sensibly.

There was another one just the other day. So called racial discrimination

(I call it cultural discrimination based on certain assumptions) is

condemned because the victims cannot change their 'race.' I mention the

tattoo discrimination as another example where the victims cannot make any

changes in a hurry. To which I get a reply that people suffering racial ie

cultural discrimination too cannot change in a hurry. Whew.

In this particular case the discrimination was probably based more on the

attitude of the foreigner concerned than anything else. In which case, it

would have been very easy to change that attitude.

I am surprised that this debate has continued so long.

Looking over the posts I wonder whether the tremendous tenacity of Mr

Clark has its roots in a different time, there are references to the

'advantages' that foreigners have in Japan (this I assume refers to the

10% of foreigners here who are white).

Well, Mr Clark, fight on, you way somewhat stall the forces of reform

but at the same time you are galvanizing the resolve of the

'do-gooders' as you call them, and soon Japan will face a real showdown

on this issue. It happened in Alabama in 1950 and in Cape Town in 1980

and it will happen in Japan. These cases are different I realize but

what is the same is the principle that it is simply wrong for a country

that wants to progress in this world to permit overt racial

discrimination within its borders.

I for one am heartened by the fact that the 'do-gooder' spearheading

this fight for anti-discrimination legislation in Japan is a white man,

for as you know from your time here we whities have it relatively easy

and the advantages do usually outweigh the disadvantages -- I mean,

that is why you are here, isn't it? Anyway, that it is a white man

illustrates that there are still some among us who will look beyond

cushy appointments and fine dinners and accommodating women to see, and

to remember the importance of, and to fight for the principles of

equality before the law and human dignity in the larger society we live

in.

Now, Mr Clark, you could just give it up and admit that the Japan you

came to (how many decades ago) is no longer, and that change will

happen, and that is because it should happen. It is, as we say here,

'natural' that is should happen. Of course you won't give up, but that

is ok because you are playing a role here (reactionaries have always

helped spur on reformers) -- your tenacity is encouraging this debatee,

so you are doing some good, you are, in a sense, a 'do-gooder'!

More power to you helping D.A. to raise a stink -- when the real world

gets wind of the fact that there are still the equivilent of "No Dogs

or Jews" or "Whites Only" signs in 21st century Japan, well, we'll see

how eager they are to offer this country a security council seat.

MDP

I suppose Mr. Clark would believe that the Latin Americans, Koreans, Chinese, Africans, and many other non-white minorities living in Japan who are also fighting to end racial discrimination in this country are also guilty of Anglo racial arrogance?

Furthermore, I find it ironic that Mr. Clark accuses others of "racial arrogance" when he himself chose to live in a racially exclusive housing complex.

Mr. Clark should be the last one lecturing others about insults.

I don't think pointing out an inconsistency in one's actions is an insult -- although I do understand why it makes Mr. Clark uncomfortable. Earlier Mr. Clark said that he wouldn't want to give a merchant his business if it had a "Japanese only" sign out front; however, he also stated that at one time he had rented from a man who had a "No Japanese allowed" policy. It seems that Mr. Clark doesn't give business to owners who practice racial discrimination unless it benefits him personally.

On 1/22/05 9:55 AM, "Gregory Clark" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I will answer your first point in a later post.

> For the moment let me say that while I have an office in central Tokyo, my

> address and residence is Ohara-machi, Chiba and that I am surrounded by

> very ordinary Japanese (and a few Hispanics).

> Get your facts right before you turn on the insults.

Gregory Clark writes Dear MDP:

Let me pick up your point that while whites, (such as myself as you

insisted on pointing out), might enjoy preferences in Japan others suffer

discrimination. It is a good point and worth analyzing, even if you chose

to make it in an insulting way.

I have already tried to point out that we all discriminate against people

we dislike or feel uneasy with. Class discrimination is one example.

People are discriminated against because of the cultural differences

implied by their class What you and others call racial discrimination is

another. IN this case, discrimination is on the basis of cultural

differences associated with race.

If racial discrimination is to be banned, then let's do something about

the many other discriminations that exist in our own societies. And pass

that on to UN ‘motherhood’ resolution framers.

This desire or need to discriminate is part of human nature (and sometimes

part of the need to organize our societies efficiently), and the only

people entitled to criticize it are the very few genuinely moral people

who are happy to associate closely with people of any class, race,

education etc. To the extent I do not see many of the bathhouse moralists

out there joining the Japanese groups set up in many Japanese towns to

help foreigners integrate, or going down to the Otaru wharves to discuss

problems with Russian seamen, I can assume they do not share what I call

genuine morality.

The Japanese approach to things, including racial differences, is more

instinctual than ours. It is one reason for their sensitivity in the arts,

and the insensitivity, or rather the unprincipled nature, of their

foreign affairs..

In the West, we operate more on the basis of alleged principles. When it

comes to racial problems there are times that can be good (UK partial

success in assimilating peoples of very different race is due to a

conscious effort to stamp out discriminations). At other times it can

be dangerous, because instinctual dislikes become hardened into dogmas and

are very hard to change. Like apartheid, they do not allow exceptions.

The areas where the UK approach has been unsuccessful could also be

examples.

True, we do not put up signs saying No Foreigners, or No Brazilians,

largely because signs like that imply total and overt racial

discrimination, which we see as unprincipled. But we discriminate in

other ways. Whites move out of districts inhabited by blacks or Hispanics,

or they become more reserved in their attitudes and their dealings with

those peoples. Shopkeepers hit by shoplifting in a lowerclass Hispanic

area would either relocate or downgrade their inventory.

In Japan discrimination is often on a personal basis. They either like

you or dislike you, Dr Fell. And if they dislike you, whether for good or

bad reasons, they do not hesitate to make it clear.

True, towards whites there was, for a time at least, hakujin suhai or

gaijin complex. We are or were regarded as superior people and respected.

That does not occur with blacks for example. But there are many examples

of US blacks who say the attitudes here are much better than in the US,

for very much the reasons I give above. In the US they are automatically

relegated to a lower or different class called blacks, regardless of

individual merits . The discrimination may not be overt, but they feel

it. And it is across the board.

Here in Japan they are judged more on their personal merits, and there are

many black merits that the Japanese say they like, for example that black

people are more laid back and less arrogant than us whites. In other

words, IF there is an instinctive unease with blacks, there are also many

exceptions. The popularity of black talento on TV is another example. I

notice that the allegations of automatic discrimination against blacks in

Japan make no mention of the Cameroons World Cup soccer team adopted by

the small town in northern Kyushu, with local farmers and housewives

traveling all the way to Tokyo and Korea to cheer their very black friends.

(I suppose some bathhouse moralist out there will complain of reverse

discrimination because no white teams were treated in this way.)

True, instinctual race discrimination, even with exceptions allowed, is

unpleasant. But so is race-based class discrimination, especially when

there are no exceptions.

With Hispanics, part of the problem has been the creation of a

badly-educated, hard-to-assimilate underclass and crime problem due to the

policy of letting in anyone with claimed Japanese parentage. But most of

the Hispanic (and other) visa over-stayers currently being driven out of

Japan are different. I fought hard, with very mild success, in the

Justice Ministry immigration policy committee to have overstayers

considered more humanely (the bureaucrats had grouped them in with the

foreigner crime problem).

My personal feeling is that most Japanese like Hispanics, partly for the

reasons that some blacks are liked in Japan.

With Chinese, there is both a crime problem and a problem of abusing

rental accommodation (with rightists there is also a problem of history).

But there exceptions, one being Sadaharu Oh, the first person to receive

Japan’s National Peoples award (sure enough, a moralistic NY Times

reporter complained that this award ignored Mr Oh’s proud declarations

that he was Chinese , not Japanese.)

With Koreans the problem has strong historic and political connections and

is harder to solve (as is the black problem in the US). But Koreans who

succeed in Japan are respected (can the same be said for blacks in the

US?). Once again we see the personal factor at work in Japan, allowing

exceptions. And here more than elsewhere it is up to the Koreans

themselves to solve their problems. Those who take Japanese nationality

usually do not have problems. But others refuse that nationality, because

they dislike Japan and are proud to be Korean.

The Western refusal to accept that the Japanese may have a different way

of doing things, and that the net result of the Japanese way can be as

good (or bad) as our own worries me. We still have not shed the Western

attitudes of superiority and which today translate into self-appointed

missions to bring 'democracy, freedom and human rights' to the world. The

horror of Vietnam and Iraq and the distortions in policy to China (the

Tiananmen myth for example) and over Kosovo were all byproducts of very

ugly assumptions of a moral superiority that does not exist.

Returning to my personal situation (since you raised it), I live in Japan

not because of any favoritism to whites. I live here because I do not

feel the class discriminations I used to see in the UK, and the political

discrimination I used suffer in my native Australia. It is no fun being

denied the jobs one has trained for and is entitled to, simply because one

belonged to a class that opposed the Vietnam War. Here in Japan they do

not even bother to ask.

But let me finish the debate here. It is clear that there is a sub-class

of gaijin here in Japan determined to rubbish this very interesting and

important society, regardless. Responding to their posts is meaningless.

They do not bother to argue points of difference. They simply enjoy

handing out insults. It gives them a nice warm feeling, like the man

peeing in his pants.

PS IN the wake of the recent arrest of a Chinese-Japanese gang using very

sophisticated techniques to steal and forge cash cards, can I have an

apology from the types who were up in arms when I pointed to the

particular problem of Chinese and Korean crime here? In this case, as in

many others, the Japanese did the footwork and the Chinese did the

brainwork. Unsophisticated Japan has little defense against these people,

and little reason to want them.

On 1/22/05 12:00 PM, "Gregory Clark" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I have already tried to point out that we all discriminate against people

> we dislike or feel uneasy with. Class discrimination is one example.

> People are discriminated against because of the cultural differences

> implied by their class What you and others call racial discrimination is

> another. IN this case, discrimination is on the basis of cultural

> differences associated with race.

Mr. Clark seems to think that by looking at someone's skin color, we can determine her or his personality. Amazing -- and scary -- that someone of his education and experience would be claiming this in the 21st century.

> If racial discrimination is to be banned, then let's do something about

> the many other discriminations that exist in our own societies. And pass

> that on to UN ‘motherhood’ resolution framers.

> This desire or need to discriminate is part of human nature (and sometimes

> part of the need to organize our societies efficiently), and the only

> people entitled to criticize it are the very few genuinely moral people

> who are happy to associate closely with people of any class, race,

> education etc.

A rather confused statement. I'm defining racial discrimination as it has been defined in the UN CERD. I am using that definition because that is the document that Japan signed and pledged to uphold. If Mr. Clark disagrees with that definition, then fine, but Japan has agreed to that definition and has pledged to pass laws forbidding it, which it has not done. The UN CERD saying nothing about who people are allowed to associate with. If people feel uncomfortable associating with those of other ethnicities, then they don't have to associate with them. However, if someone opens a business to the public, they are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity. Mr. Clark can try to skate around the issue and claim that it's not really racial discrimination, but when someone is refused into a public establishment solely on the basis of her or his skin color or place of origin, that is racial discrimination according to the definition I've cited above, to which Japan has agreed to. He either believes that Japan should abdicate from the UN CERD or simply ignore it, both of which I do not think would be good for Japan or the people who live and work here. Of course, since Mr. Clark is fond of living in racially exclusive housing complexes, he disagrees. He's welcome to that opinion, however reactionary it is.

Furthermore, Mr. Clark seems to suggests that racial discrimination and segregation are sometimes necessary to "organize societies efficiency". What an incredible statement. This could have been said by Strom Thurmond or George Wallace as much as by Gregory Clark.

> True, we do not put up signs saying No Foreigners, or No Brazilians,

> largely because signs like that imply total and overt racial

> discrimination, which we see as unprincipled. But we discriminate in

> other ways. Whites move out of districts inhabited by blacks or Hispanics,

> or they become more reserved in their attitudes and their dealings with

> those peoples. Shopkeepers hit by shoplifting in a lowerclass Hispanic

> area would either relocate or downgrade their inventory.

Another confused statement. A white family choosing to move out of a minority neighborhood isn't racial discrimination. A landlord who, say, wanted to only rent to whites (or, as in Mr. Clark's experience, only wanted to rent to non-Japanese) is racial discrimination. Again, not my definition, but a definition agreed to by the majority of the world's nations, including Japan.

> With Hispanics, part of the problem has been the creation of a

> badly-educated, hard-to-assimilate underclass and crime problem due to the

> policy of letting in anyone with claimed Japanese parentage.

I'm still not sure what data Mr. Clark uses to make this assertion, but I'd be very interested in seeing it.

> But most of

> the Hispanic (and other) visa over-stayers currently being driven out of

> Japan are different. I fought hard, with very mild success, in the

> Justice Ministry immigration policy committee to have overstayers

> considered more humanely (the bureaucrats had grouped them in with the

> foreigner crime problem).

Good, I think Mr. Clark should be congratulated for that. But couldn't one interpret that, under Mr. Clark's definitions he's put forth, he's showing of some kind of "moral superiority" over the way the Japanese do things? Or of some kind of inner hatred of the Japanese themselves? Of course not. Mr. Clark disagrees with the policy, and he's trying to change it -- and rightly so. The same goes for those who are trying to change Japan's policy of allowing public establishments to discriminate based on race or ethnicity. Both Mr. Clark and the so-called "bathhouse moralists" are in many ways trying to do the same: both see policies that are in need of changing, and this has nothing to do with their feelings toward Japan or of the Japanese people, nor of any moral superiority. Mr. Clark may disagree with the need for the change in policy with regard to racial discrimination, and he's entitled to that opinion. However, to call those who seek to change such a policy of being "morally superior" and holding a belief that Japanese have some innate predisposition to racism is about as logical as characterizing Mr. Clark's efforts to change immigration policy under the same umbrella.

> With Chinese, there is both a crime problem and a problem of abusing

> rental accommodation (with rightists there is also a problem of history).

> But there exceptions, one being Sadaharu Oh, the first person to receive

> Japan’s National Peoples award (sure enough, a moralistic NY Times

> reporter complained that this award ignored Mr Oh’s proud declarations

> that he was Chinese , not Japanese.)

It sounds like Mr. Clark is insinuating that Chinese, with a few exceptions, are somehow predisposed to crime and abuse of property. That's about as absurd as saying that Japanese are somehow predisposed to racism.

> With Koreans the problem has strong historic and political connections and

> is harder to solve (as is the black problem in the US).

The "black problem". Wow. I wonder what kind of reaction he would get if he said that to an African-American.

> But Koreans who

> succeed in Japan are respected (can the same be said for blacks in the

> US?). Once again we see the personal factor at work in Japan, allowing

> exceptions. And here more than elsewhere it is up to the Koreans

> themselves to solve their problems. Those who take Japanese nationality

> usually do not have problems. But others refuse that nationality, because

> they dislike Japan and are proud to be Korean.

Another ridiculous statement. I have had several Korean students here in Japan who, even after being told several times during their job searches by employers that they "don't hire Koreans", they still like Japan and would not want to live anywhere else -- and they are still proud to be Korean. Mr. Clark seems to think that being proud of one's Korean heritage makes one dislike Japan. And Mr. Clark accuses others of being from another planet?

> The Western refusal to accept that the Japanese may have a different way

> of doing things, and that the net result of the Japanese way can be as

> good (or bad) as our own worries me. We still have not shed the Western

> attitudes of superiority and which today translate into self-appointed

> missions to bring 'democracy, freedom and human rights' to the world. The

> horror of Vietnam and Iraq and the distortions in policy to China (the

> Tiananmen myth for example) and over Kosovo were all byproducts of very

> ugly assumptions of a moral superiority that does not exist.

I'm not sure what Mr. Clark means by the "Tiananmen Myth".

Mr. Clark seems to be arguing that the concepts of democracy and freedom are Western or Anglo principles, and not universal human rights. However, merely the number of non-Western, non-Anglo human rights activists in the world seem to contradict this notion. The fact that the UN and Amnesty International -- both world organizations -- is fighting against human rights violations also contradicts this notion. Where these notions first came about historically is irrelevant -- they have become accepted international standards of conduct, which Japan has agreed to uphold.

Mr. Clark makes a good point with regard to Vietnam and Iraq in that the U.S. claimed to be fighting for democracy when it really had another agenda. I don't disagree with him on this. However, the relation between this point and the fact that there are those who are seeking to eliminate racial discrimination in Japan somehow have an alternative agenda is illogical.

> Returning to my personal situation (since you raised it), I live in Japan

> not because of any favoritism to whites. I live here because I do not

> feel the class discriminations I used to see in the UK, and the political

> discrimination I used suffer in my native Australia. It is no fun being

> denied the jobs one has trained for and is entitled to, simply because one

> belonged to a class that opposed the Vietnam War. Here in Japan they do

> not even bother to ask.

This still does not the point. Mr. Clark claimed that he does not want to give business to those merchants who post "Japanese Only" signs. However, he claimed that he lived in a housing complex whose landlord refused to rent to Japanese. This apparent inconsistency still hasn't been addressed, but I can see why it would be difficult to defend it.

> But let me finish the debate here. It is clear that there is a sub-class

> of gaijin here in Japan determined to rubbish this very interesting and

> important society, regardless. Responding to their posts is meaningless.

> They do not bother to argue points of difference. They simply enjoy

> handing out insults. It gives them a nice warm feeling, like the man

> peeing in his pants.

Mr. Clark complains of insults when he calls people who disagree with him "dumb" and "from another planet". Give me a break.

Mr. Clark believes that those who seek to end racial discrimination in Japan are somehow really intent on destroying Japanese culture. A truly absurd statement, but par for the course with Mr. Clark.

It appears to be that Mr. Clark, through reading several articles and interviews with him, as well as these posts, that he is completely incapable of having a debate without resorting to insults or treating the other side as complete idiots. It seems to me that Mr. Clark's "political exile" is as much, if not more so, based on his personality than his political beliefs.

> PS IN the wake of the recent arrest of a Chinese-Japanese gang using very

> sophisticated techniques to steal and forge cash cards, can I have an

> apology from the types who were up in arms when I pointed to the

> particular problem of Chinese and Korean crime here? In this case, as in

> many others, the Japanese did the footwork and the Chinese did the

> brainwork. Unsophisticated Japan has little defense against these people,

> and little reason to want them.

What a truly arrogant statement. Mr. Clark claimed in an earlier post that the media should be reporting more on foreign crime. I cited data that showed that the media is actually over-reporting on foreign crime. Mr. Clark has shown nothing that would dispute that. We have been reading in the papers lately about several killings of children done by Japanese, but I haven't heard anyone claim that the Japanese have some sort of predisposition to child-killing. "Unsophisticated Japan"? Now who's the one who is looking down on the Japanese? If Japan has little reason to want anyone, it would be apologists for racism like Mr. Clark.

I grew up on a large dairy farm in Victoria, Australia. At that time

there were almost zero people from other cultures and races. We were

bigoted in some respects simply because we knew no better. We were

Australian, we lived and breathed the atmosphere of our race and

culture our country. No ther race or culture could be like us. As time

moved on I eventually gained a place at university. It was there that I

lost my identity. For many many years I had said, yes ' I am

Australian' and was damn proud of it. An asian - or black could not be

Australian. It gave me a sense of satisfaction and a sense of

belonging. But now I could no longer believe I could identify with my

race as australian. How could I? Otherwise it would most definatley

would have been racist of me to continue such thoughts. So now I was in

utter despair and confusion as to where I belonged.I was no longer

Australian - I didnt know what it ment to be australian. After dropping

out of university I joined the army - where I found again a sense of

belonging and I really enjoyed my time there, despite the harsh

disipline.

I believe that so called multicultualism is a failed institution -

mainly becuase it breaks down the idea of one nation - one people.

Noone can Identify with their race as being 'Australian'. We simply

identify ourselves with our race. I am white, you are black, you are

asian, not 'Australian'. In the army, it is most definaltey still white

dominated. Ver very few asians or blacks etc ever join the army. This

leads me to believe that these people do not much identify with

Australia. Infact alot of my asian friends certainly didnt identify

with Australia. They identified with their race only. Thats one of the

resons we probably see so many racial gang wars in the big cities here.

I finally drifted over to Perth where I met a nice Japanese lady, and

eventually I made it to Japan to be with her. Initially I thought I

would stay 2 weeks (lack of funds) but fate decided I would stay for 5

years. One thing that surprised me was that I didnt miss Australia

once, not one time in all those years. Why? Because I have lost my

Australan identity, it is dead. I fell in love with Japan. The

atmosphere there can be felt. They are one nation, one people, one

culture. No foreinger can be part of it. The lines were so clear for

me, not like back in Australia. I was a white man, with my culture,

they cannot be part of mine, and I cannot be part of theirs. It was

very satisfying. That didnt stop me from learning the language and,

trying at least, to follow how they did things, basically be a good

guest.

I believe it is simply absurd that ANY foreigner shoud dictate anything

to the Japanese. I always had the feeling of being an guest, and that I

had no right to push my views onto them. I just simply enjoyed the

differences. I think Mr Clark is right. All these do-gooders are not

doing any good to Japan. If 'multiculturalism' takes of in Japan, its

finished. Crime will explode, the young will drink and drug themselves

to death out of frustration form thier lost identity. As for me, I am

back in Australia. To tell the truth I dont enjoy it here. Its all so

disfuntional, things changed for the worse while is was gone. I will

probably end up in Japan and live peacefully in the sticks, reveling in

the atmosphere in a nation of one race and one people. I just hope it

is not destroyed - like Australia was.

Renak

I would recommend reading "Japan's Minorities: The Illusion of Homogeneity", edited by Michael Weiner. I think you'll find that the concept of Japan as a "one race, one people" culture is a myth.

You also raised the interesting concept of foreigners in a foreign land. However, the difficult question is this: who is a foreigner? The United States has gone through various period of anti-immigrant sentiment, even though the country is essentially a nation of immigrants. The only "true" natives are the Native Americans, and even they crossed over from Russia to Alaska thousands of years ago. Japan's "original" people are the Ainu, so if we were to go strictly by the definition you have set forth, the Japanese are technically "foreigners", since they also came through Korean from China thousands of years ago. Furthermore, there are many Koreans, Chinese, Okinawans, and other ethnicities that have been in Japan for several generations, yet are often afraid to share their ethnicity with others because of the fear that they would be treated as a "foreigner". Some Japanese will not allow their children to marry burakamin, who share the same ethnic background as most Japanese. So the concept of a "foreigner" is not as always clear cut as it may seem.

What's interesting in my experiences in discussing the movement to end racial discrimination in this country is that much of the resistance to it comes from the white community in Japan. I've asked my Japanese students and my Japanese friends about it, and I almost always get the same reaction: that racial discrimination is wrong, and that people should be not be denied to enter public places based on their race or ethnicity. It would be interesting to do further research on this and see whether this plays out across the nation, whether we find differences in age groups or other socioeconomic factors. My speculation is that many whites come to

Japan believing in this myth that Japan is of "one race, one people", and are somehow comforted in this belief, and do not want to accept the reality that Japan is indeed a very multicultural nation. It could also be due to a possible fear of some sort of backlash against them, a reaction that whites are just troublemakers of some sort. Mr. Clark in several of his postings made the less-than-convincing claim that much of the rising nationalism in Japan was somehow due to the "do-gooders". I've addressed this claim fully in my previous posts, I believe.

As far as a debate of the merits of multiculturalism, that is really a whole separate debate, and I'll let others take that on if they wish. However, this argument keeps being mentioned that somehow whites are dictating what Japan should do within its own borders. However, as I've argued before, Japan itself has sought to become more international, to recruit more foreign business, more foreign nationals to work and live in Japan. It has signed agreements it long resisted to meet international standards on the elimination of racial discrimination. This isn't some kind of Anglo obsession -- I actually see it quite the opposite, that there is some Anglo obsession with keeping things the way they are -- or they way they perceive that they ought to be -- again, going to this myth of a homogeneous Japan that is bought into, a Japan that perhaps existed only in their mind.

Steve

Gregory Clark wrote:

> For God's sake, are there not more important things in the world to

worry

> about than a long-suffering, probably less than totally worldly,

> bathhouse owner's off-the-cuff emotional reaction to a rikutsupoi

gaijin

> not interested in having a bath but simply trying to use his family

> make a political statement?

Mr. Clark,

With the first statement of yours, I agree. There are definitely more

urgent problems in this world. And since you bring in the godly aspect,

I have to agree with you even more. The question about God, if my life

has a meaning, where I am going after I die...those are really the most

important things in life to worry about.

But how sure are you about the second statement?

If you are so sure that a certain "gaijin" (by the way, this term is

derogatory) wasn't interested in taking a bath and using his family for

political purposes, why don't you name names?

You followed the media, and I am sure it did not escape your attention

that my son Daniel and I were refused at Yunohana in Otaru in September

1999.

Mr. Clark, we have never met. You don't know me. You don't know my

family. You have absolutely no idea about my motives.

In case the "rikutsupoi gaijin" is me: How did you come to the

conclusion that I "used" my family.

Olaf Karthaus

Hi Steve, thanks for your comments. I'm first to admit that I do not

want Japan to change and become like Australia or the 'west'. I dont

want them to adopt western 'ideals' either. Why? Because I see the west

as a failure, culurally, politically and economically. Australia is a

hotch-potch full of people who dont care about others. Neighbors having

loud, drunken parties, teens drugging themselves for 'fun', drivers

actually killing another drive for 'cutting them off'. Why should we

place ideals of our failing societies onto others? Our so called

western 'liberated' societies are in decay - there is no doubt. Japan

is now also starting on that process of social decay.

As for this nonsense about shopkeepers banning people etc. I too am

guilty of this crime when I banned Australians and Irish from my youth

hostel when I was manager. The reason? These people atleast 10% of them

disturbed the majority thus driving away business. Therefore they

simply had to be banned. End of story. Thus I can sympathize with the

Japanese proprietors. However I also sympathize with foreigners banned

just because of a few bad eggs. At the end of the day business is

business - personally I couldnt care less if I was banned for a

bathhouse, because I know the reasons for it are not sinister.

Personally I never had any trouble getting a place to live in or had

any trouble with any so called 'racism' in all my 5 short years there.

The book you suggested I will try and get my hands on. But from my

experience, Japan is FAR more homogenous than any western country I

have seen. There are sprinklings of other races agreed. But hardly to

the to the extent now seen in the west.

Renak

[email protected] writes:

>Another confused statement. A white family choosing to move out of a

>minority neighborhood isn't racial discrimination. A landlord who, say,

>wanted to only rent to whites (or, as in Mr. Clark's experience, only

>wanted

>to rent to non-Japanese) is racial discrimination. Again, not my

>definition,

>but a definition agreed to by the majority of the world's nations,

>including

>Japan.

It is this constant distortion of argument that bugs me about you people.

I did not say my Japanese landlord was biassed towards white people. I

said he was biassed towards people who obeyed rental contracts - in this

case very understandable since he had a son who needed a larger pad (mine)

when his first child was born.

It just so happens that in Japan it is Westerners rather than Japanese who

are more likely to obey rental contracts.

Similarly about Otaru onsen. The guy originally probably had no bias

against foreigners. He simply had a bias against foreigners who pee-ed in

his bathtub and destroyed his property. To solve the problem he banned

foreigners. AS a result he is dragged before the courts and accused of

racial discrimination. Just how unrealistic can you moralists be?

>-----

>While I disagree with Mr. Clark's opinions on the lawsuits against

>onsens and such, I have to agree with him on many of the other problems

>he points out and labels as racial discrimination. I believe a white

>family deciding to move out of a neighborhood because a large number of

>minorities have moved in is racial discrimination. They are deciding

>where to live simply based on the race, or 'perceived cultural

>identity', of the people around them. This is a problem in many areas,

>one of them being the United States.

>Where Mr. Clark is mistaken is in his assumption that, becuase these

>other forms of discrimination exist, our fight against discrimination

>at onsens, hotels, and other establishments in Japan doesn't matter.

>This is what I refer to as 'dribble', not as an insult toward him, but

>as a discription of his fallacious argument, an argument that would be

>inadmissable in any truly academic discussion. Whether or not there

>are 'worse' problems somewhere else on the globe or not has nothing to

>do with whether particular injustices are worth working against. This

>fallacy is the centerpiece of Mr. Clark's argument. Without that

>fallacy, and his constant stereotyping of others--while hypocritically

>accusing those who disagree with him of stereotyping Japanese--he would

>have nothing to stand on.

So an argument that says: Given human nature, not mention practical

problems, discriminations of all kinds, including discriminations against

people with very different cultural values, are inevitable in any

society, and that in Western society this occurs through people moving out

of neighborhoods they do not like is one result, is not acceptable

academically? Tell me what university you come from, please.

Gregory Clark

Head, Research Japan Office

S603 Ark Hills Executive Tower

1-14-5 Akasaka

Minato-ku, Tokyo

107-0052

Tel: 03-3586-4147

Fax: 03-3586-4148

www.gregoryclark.net

www.gregoryclark.net/nakadaki

> It is this constant distortion of argument that bugs me about you people.

> I did not say my Japanese landlord was biassed towards white people. I

> said he was biassed towards people who obeyed rental contracts - in this

> case very understandable since he had a son who needed a larger pad (mine)

> when his first child was born.

> It just so happens that in Japan it is Westerners rather than Japanese who

> are more likely to obey rental contracts.

I wonder what data Mr. Clark uses to support this argument that Westerners are more likely to obey rental contracts than Japanese? Is there a study done on this? Any data?

It's ironic to find Mr. Clark talking of distortion. If someone denies housing to a certain ethnicity or race, its racial discrimination. Period. Mr. Clark can try to couch it as "cultural difference", just as the white segregationists defending "Southern Culture" 40 years ago in America. He chose to live in an apartment whose landlord was discriminating in favor of whites and against non-whites. Yet Mr. Clark claims he does not visit merchants who discriminate against non-Japanese. I'd rather be a so-called "moralist" than lack any morals at all when it comes to standing against racial discrimination -- whether it benefits me or not.

> So an argument that says: Given human nature, not mention practical

> problems, discriminations of all kinds, including discriminations against

> people with very different cultural values, are inevitable in any

> society, and that in Western society this occurs through people moving out

> of neighborhoods they do not like is one result, is not acceptable

> academically? Tell me what university you come from, please.

Ah, we're back to the insults now.

Let me see if I can summarize this paragraph: Since there is discrimination all over the globe, we should not seek to end it here in Japan. Sorry, the logic fails me. Perhaps it was the university I went to. They had this crazy notion that judging people on the basis of their race or ethnicity was not acceptable in modern society. And the UN had this crazy notion that they should write a convention encouraging governments to write laws outlawing it. And then a bunch of crazy nations, including Japan, actually signed it and pledged to uphold it. But Mr. Clark stands against it.

> Similarly about Otaru onsen. The guy originally probably had no bias

> against foreigners. He simply had a bias against foreigners who pee-ed in

> his bathtub and destroyed his property. To solve the problem he banned

> foreigners. AS a result he is dragged before the courts and accused of

> racial discrimination. Just how unrealistic can you moralists be?

I've made my arguments clear in prior posts. I'm not going to respond to the same points made over and over again. If Mr. Clark feels those who fight against racial discrimination are unrealistic, that's fine. If Mr. Clark feels that racial discrimination is warranted in certain circumstances, he's entitled to his opinion. There are always those people who stand for progress and those people who seek to maintain the status quo. I think people can judge for themselves what side they are on.

[email protected] writes:

>On 1/22/05 12:00 PM, "Gregory Clark" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I have already tried to point out that we all discriminate against

>people

>> we dislike or feel uneasy with. Class discrimination is one example.

>> People are discriminated against because of the cultural differences

>> implied by their class What you and others call racial discrimination

>is

>> another. IN this case, discrimination is on the basis of cultural

>> differences associated with race.

>Mr. Clark seems to think that by looking at someone's skin color, we can

>determine her or his personality. Amazing -- and scary -- that someone of

>his education and experience would be claiming this in the 21st century.

Some Japanese discriminate against whites and in favor of blacks, mainly

on the basis of skin color. They associate skin color with values (I have

earlier described those values, and, contrary to many white prejudices,

they are not necessarily related to sex) that they like, and dislike.

So when do I get to see you bathhouse moralists running around Roppongi in

sound trucks denouncing this blatant racial discrimination against whites,

or even better, calling in the lawyers?

>> If racial discrimination is to be banned, then let's do something about

>> the many other discriminations that exist in our own societies. And pass

>> that on to UN ‘motherhood? resolution framers.

>> This desire or need to discriminate is part of human nature (and

>sometimes

>> part of the need to organize our societies efficiently), and the only

>> people entitled to criticize it are the very few genuinely moral people

>> who are happy to associate closely with people of any class, race,

>> education etc.

>A rather confused statement. I'm defining racial discrimination as it has

>been defined in the UN CERD. I am using that definition because that is

>the

>document that Japan signed and pledged to uphold. If Mr. Clark disagrees

>with that definition, then fine, but Japan has agreed to that definition

>and

>has pledged to pass laws forbidding it, which it has not done. The UN CERD

>saying nothing about who people are allowed to associate with. If people

>feel uncomfortable associating with those of other ethnicities, then they

>don't have to associate with them. However, if someone opens a business to

>the public, they are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race or

>ethnicity. Mr. Clark can try to skate around the issue and claim that it's

>not really racial discrimination, but when someone is refused into a

>public

>establishment solely on the basis of her or his skin color or place of

>origin, that is racial discrimination according to the definition I've

>cited

>above, to which Japan has agreed to. He either believes that Japan should

>abdicate from the UN CERD or simply ignore it, both of which I do not

>think

>would be good for Japan or the people who live and work here. Of course,

>since Mr. Clark is fond of living in racially exclusive housing complexes,

>he disagrees. He's welcome to that opinion, however reactionary it is.

Sorry, you did not answer my final statement. Are you bathhouse moralists

willing to take into your houses and friendships people of any race, class

or education? If not, forever hold your peace.

And once again, you get on the distortion bandwagon. Some discriminations

ARE inevitable if societies are to function properly. Companies have to

discriminate in their hiring policies. Universities discriminate on the

basis of entrance exams. Nations discriminate in their visa policies.

I have explained all this. Why do I have to go back on it all over again

because you have some bee in your bonnet over the word discrimination?

If you disagree with these forms of discrimination, say so. I would be

very interested to know what you propose as an alternative. Genuinely

interested, because I do not like some of them also (I have wasted years

in education ministry committees trying to get rid of some of the

discrimination in entrance exams, through a system of provisional entry

-zantei nyugaku - which I have finally been able to introduce to my Akita

university.)

But I suspect none of you people are interested in realities like this.

You just like to let those bees buzz away. I gives you a nice good warm

feeling.

I will go even further and get your bees buzzing even more, namely that

some forms of racial discrimination are less offensive than class

discrimination. With the latter you have no escape, short of changing

your class. With racial discrimination in some cases you do have an

alternative. Change your country.

For a long time I have hestitated to use that well-worn cliche with gaijin

who complain about Japan. But I am getting close to it now.

>Furthermore, Mr. Clark seems to suggests that racial discrimination and

>segregation are sometimes necessary to "organize societies efficiency".

>What

>an incredible statement. This could have been said by Strom Thurmond or

>George Wallace as much as by Gregory Clark.

Oh ho. We are back on the distortion train.

I did not say racial discrimination was needed. I said 'racial' separation

could be important and justified at times, and not just in the case of

Australian aborigines.

If you think Clinton's rejection of the Vance 1995 proposal for physically

separating Serbs, Croats and Islamics in Bosnia - a rejection based on the

moralistic principle of trying to force these clearly antagonistic people

to live in multi-ethic harmony forever - was the right descision,then come

out and say so. But I suspect none of you have any idea of what happened

in Bosnia, or of Clinton's responsibility for the subsequent tragedy,

leading ironically to the inevitable racial (or rather ethnic cultural)

separation we see today.

In Kosovo the tragedy was far greater, and the result of the same

determination to ignore the true nature of cultural conflicts based on

ethnicity within a society.

>> True, we do not put up signs saying No Foreigners, or No Brazilians,

>> largely because signs like that imply total and overt racial

>> discrimination, which we see as unprincipled. But we discriminate in

>> other ways. Whites move out of districts inhabited by blacks or

>Hispanics,

>> or they become more reserved in their attitudes and their dealings with

>> those peoples. Shopkeepers hit by shoplifting in a lowerclass Hispanic

>> area would either relocate or downgrade their inventory.

>Another confused statement. A white family choosing to move out of a

>minority neighborhood isn't racial discrimination. A landlord who, say,

>wanted to only rent to whites (or, as in Mr. Clark's experience, only

>wanted

>to rent to non-Japanese) is racial discrimination. Again, not my

>definition,

>but a definition agreed to by the majority of the world's nations,

>including

>Japan.

See my response to an earlier post on this topic. Once again, I can

think of no greater example of the unreality of you bathhouse moralists -

complaining about a landlord who simply wanted to rent to people who

obeyed contracts, rather than to people who did not obey.

In the real world out there (check it out sometime) people can only make

decisions like this on the basis of the cultural values of ethnic groups.

Japanese generally, and for not necessarily evil cultural reasons, tend

to ignore contracts. Gaijin do not.

At the time the refusal of Japanese house owners to rent to other Japanese

was adding fuel to the land boom because of the shortage of rental housing

. IN Tokyo the fact that some house owners felt safe renting to

contract-abiding gaijin was a major factor easing that shortage, at least

at the high end of the market.

>> With Hispanics, part of the problem has been the creation of a

>> badly-educated, hard-to-assimilate underclass and crime problem due to

>the

>> policy of letting in anyone with claimed Japanese parentage.

>I'm still not sure what data Mr. Clark uses to make this assertion, but

>I'd

>be very interested in seeing it.

Once again, this demand for data is a serious reflection on the inability

or unwillingness of bathhouse moralists to go out and check realities

Just get the data for Hispanic youth crime in Ota (know where that is?

probably not.) Or Hamamatsu.

If you can't then admit your ignorance,and I will give them to you. (Hint:

Look for the stats attached to the recent Homusho committee report on

immigration problems)

>> But most of

>> the Hispanic (and other) visa over-stayers currently being driven out of

>> Japan are different. I fought hard, with very mild success, in the

>> Justice Ministry immigration policy committee to have overstayers

>> considered more humanely (the bureaucrats had grouped them in with the

>> foreigner crime problem).

>Good, I think Mr. Clark should be congratulated for that. But couldn't one

>interpret that, under Mr. Clark's definitions he's put forth, he's showing

>of some kind of "moral superiority" over the way the Japanese do things?

>Or

>of some kind of inner hatred of the Japanese themselves? Of course not.

>Mr.

>Clark disagrees with the policy, and he's trying to change it -- and

>rightly

>so. The same goes for those who are trying to change Japan's policy of

>allowing public establishments to discriminate based on race or ethnicity.

>Both Mr. Clark and the so-called "bathhouse moralists" are in many ways

>trying to do the same: both see policies that are in need of changing, and

>this has nothing to do with their feelings toward Japan or of the Japanese

>people, nor of any moral superiority. Mr. Clark may disagree with the need

>for the change in policy with regard to racial discrimination, and he's

>entitled to that opinion. However, to call those who seek to change such a

>policy of being "morally superior" and holding a belief that Japanese have

>some innate predisposition to racism is about as logical as characterizing

>Mr. Clark's efforts to change immigration policy under the same umbrella.

This is garbage argumentation, and you know it. Do you want to know when I

will stop beating my wife?

>> With Chinese, there is both a crime problem and a problem of abusing

>> rental accommodation (with rightists there is also a problem of

>history).

>> But there exceptions, one being Sadaharu Oh, the first person to receive

>> Japan?s National Peoples award (sure enough, a moralistic NY Times

>> reporter complained that this award ignored Mr Oh?s proud declarations

>> that he was Chinese , not Japanese.)

>It sounds like Mr. Clark is insinuating that Chinese, with a few

>exceptions,

>are somehow predisposed to crime and abuse of property. That's about as

>absurd as saying that Japanese are somehow predisposed to racism.

Oh ho. Back on the distortion train again.

So I said 'with few exceptions"? Where are you guys coming from?

I have spent most of my adult life defending the Chinese people against

every kind of distortion. I have even bothered to learn their language.

Have you?

But that said, you know, and I know, that there is a certain class of

Chinese who come to Japan to commit crime, or who are very willing to

commit crime, because it is very easy to get away with clever or violent

crime in Japan. Just check the newspapers for the last week or so.

Check the Hongkong media too, with their reports on Hongkong gangs moving

out of there as a result of police crackdowns and heading for Japan where

there are easy pickings.

Once again, I find it distressing that rather than do the hard research

yourselves, you bathhouse moralists find it much easier to chant racial

discrimination mantras against someone who has done a lot more to break

down racial, or rather national, hatreds that you will do in a multitude

of lifetimes.

That at least has to be my conclusion when I see the constant resort to

distortion, and lack of factual data, in your arguments.

>> With Koreans the problem has strong historic and political connections

>and

>> is harder to solve (as is the black problem in the US).

>The "black problem". Wow. I wonder what kind of reaction he would get if

>he

>said that to an African-American.

For me, the word 'black' is politically acceptable, or at least it was

until you moralists might have decided otherwise.So what is your word for

black people who do not come from Africa? And how about the 'racial slur'

involved in your use of the word 'whites?" Wow! AS an Australian I find it

insulting to be called white. We are all bronzed surf heros.

>> But Koreans who

>> succeed in Japan are respected (can the same be said for blacks in the

>> US?). Once again we see the personal factor at work in Japan, allowing

>> exceptions. And here more than elsewhere it is up to the Koreans

>> themselves to solve their problems. Those who take Japanese nationality

>> usually do not have problems. But others refuse that nationality,

>because

>> they dislike Japan and are proud to be Korean.

>Another ridiculous statement. I have had several Korean students here in

>Japan who, even after being told several times during their job searches

>by

>employers that they "don't hire Koreans", they still like Japan and would

>not want to live anywhere else -- and they are still proud to be Korean.

>Mr.

>Clark seems to think that being proud of one's Korean heritage makes one

>dislike Japan. And Mr. Clark accuses others of being from another planet?

Some Koreans dislike Japan. Some like Japan. Some are proud of their

Korean heritage and like Japan. But quite a few of those who are proud of

their Korean heritage dislike Japan, precisely because they know the harm

Japan once did to their country.

Are we OK with that, my child? Do I have to spell everything out in simple

sentences, simply to get round your determination to distort everything?

>> The Western refusal to accept that the Japanese may have a different way

>> of doing things, and that the net result of the Japanese way can be as

>> good (or bad) as our own worries me. We still have not shed the Western

>> attitudes of superiority and which today translate into self-appointed

>> missions to bring 'democracy, freedom and human rights' to the world.

>The

>> horror of Vietnam and Iraq and the distortions in policy to China (the

>> Tiananmen myth for example) and over Kosovo were all byproducts of very

>> ugly assumptions of a moral superiority that does not exist.

>I'm not sure what Mr. Clark means by the "Tiananmen Myth".

Read my articles. Even better, read Document 31 of the US Embassy

reports from Beijing during Tiananmen affair, now on the Internet. Or even

better simply check the eyewitness reports available at the time.

Once again, do your homework before venturing into print.

>Mr. Clark seems to be arguing that the concepts of democracy and freedom

>are

>Western or Anglo principles, and not universal human rights. However,

>merely

>the number of non-Western, non-Anglo human rights activists in the world

>seem to contradict this notion. The fact that the UN and Amnesty

>International -- both world organizations -- is fighting against human

>rights violations also contradicts this notion. Where these notions first

>came about historically is irrelevant -- they have become accepted

>international standards of conduct, which Japan has agreed to uphold.

No society has real democracy, or real freedom. All restrict both, some

more than others, because they believe they have value systems that make

the full expression of both incompatible with the efficient working of a

society. The US is no exception.

Singapore is a stronger exception. China even more so. I think some of

their efficiencies could have been gained in other ways, but it is still

to early to say that China is not working in that direction anyway, or

that Singapore would be a better society without its various restrictions

on free speech etc. .

Like I said, when I see bathhouse moralists prepared to sacrifice time,

careers etc to protest far greater violations of human rights than Otaru

or Hamamatsu, I will know they are for real. In the meantime I will

assume they are just out there chanting slogans because it gives them a

nice warm feeling.

>Mr. Clark makes a good point with regard to Vietnam and Iraq in that the

>U.S. claimed to be fighting for democracy when it really had another

>agenda.

>I don't disagree with him on this. However, the relation between this

>point

>and the fact that there are those who are seeking to eliminate racial

>discrimination in Japan somehow have an alternative agenda is illogical.

Oh my God, we are back to chanting slogans. Please answer arguments.

Don't just sit back chanting that I favor racial discrimination when I

have said ad nauseum that I do not favor racial discrimination, even if

some kinds are inevitable, and I do not believe that you bathhouse

moralists are doing anything effective to fight even the non-inevitable

varieties, even in Japan.

>> Returning to my personal situation (since you raised it), I live in

>Japan

>> not because of any favoritism to whites. I live here because I do not

>> feel the class discriminations I used to see in the UK, and the

>political

>> discrimination I used suffer in my native Australia. It is no fun

>being

>> denied the jobs one has trained for and is entitled to, simply because

>one

>> belonged to a class that opposed the Vietnam War. Here in Japan they do

>> not even bother to ask.

>This still does not the point. Mr. Clark claimed that he does not want to

>give business to those merchants who post "Japanese Only" signs. However,

>he

>claimed that he lived in a housing complex whose landlord refused to rent

>to

>Japanese. This apparent inconsistency still hasn't been addressed, but I

>can

>see why it would be difficult to defend it.

Do I have to repeat everything again?

It was not, repeat not, a housing complex. It was an office in someone's

house, and the landlord refused for a very good reason. He wanted someone

who obeyed contracts, so that he could plan a future for his son, the

young wife and their expected child, thanks to the fact that he had

reason to believe he could be sure when my office became vacant. He could

not have been so sure if he had rented to a Japanese.

But if you say he was guilty of 'racial discrimination than all I can say

is Tut Tut. .

What do we have to do to beat some reality into the dogmatic minds of you

other planet dwelling moralists.

>> But let me finish the debate here. It is clear that there is a

>sub-class

>> of gaijin here in Japan determined to rubbish this very interesting and

>> important society, regardless. Responding to their posts is meaningless.

>> They do not bother to argue points of difference. They simply enjoy

>> handing out insults. It gives them a nice warm feeling, like the man

>> peeing in his pants.

>Mr. Clark complains of insults when he calls people who disagree with him

>"dumb" and "from another planet". Give me a break.

More tut tut. IF YOU HAVE ANOTHER WORD FOR THE UNREALITY AND PLAIN

STRAIGHTOUT IGNORANCE OF PEOPLE WHO OBJECT TO A LANDLORD SIMPLY WANTING TO

HAVE A TENANT WHO OBSERVED CONTRACTS , THEN GIVE IT TO ME.

>Mr. Clark believes that those who seek to end racial discrimination in

>Japan

>are somehow really intent on destroying Japanese culture. A truly absurd

>statement, but par for the course with Mr. Clark.

I said you are arrogant towards Japanese values, a different thing.

>It appears to be that Mr. Clark, through reading several articles and

>interviews with him, as well as these posts, that he is completely

>incapable

>of having a debate without resorting to insults or treating the other side

>as complete idiots. It seems to me that Mr. Clark's "political exile" is

>as

>much, if not more so, based on his personality than his political beliefs.

Find me a shrink, quickly.

>> PS IN the wake of the recent arrest of a Chinese-Japanese gang using

>very

>> sophisticated techniques to steal and forge cash cards, can I have an

>> apology from the types who were up in arms when I pointed to the

>> particular problem of Chinese and Korean crime here? In this case, as

>in

>> many others, the Japanese did the footwork and the Chinese did the

>> brainwork. Unsophisticated Japan has little defense against these

>people,

>> and little reason to want them.

>What a truly arrogant statement. Mr. Clark claimed in an earlier post that

>the media should be reporting more on foreign crime.

Oh Ho, again. Where did I say that? In fact I said the exact opposite.

But I suppose that does not matter in the topsy-turvy world that

dogmatists of all varieties live in.

>I cited data that

>showed that the media is actually over-reporting on foreign crime. Mr.

>Clark

>has shown nothing that would dispute that.

This time the distortion really does go overboard. I said, and wrote,

that it was precisely because of bureaucratic and media OVER-EMPHASIS on

foreign crime that we now have this cruel witchhunt against visa

over-stayers, which I, unlike you bathhouse moralists, am trying to do

something to stop.

Give me a break.

>We have been reading in the

>papers lately about several killings of children done by Japanese, but I

>haven't heard anyone claim that the Japanese have some sort of

>predisposition to child-killing.

For 40,700 yen? An entire family?

>"Unsophisticated Japan"? Now who's the one

>who is looking down on the Japanese?

It is precisely the simple, trusting, unspohsicated nature of the Japanese

in daily life that I like so much (even if it upsets me in their inability

to formulate sensible economic and foreign policies). If anything, it

makes me look up to Japan, as you would know if you read anything that I

write.

But once again, you people are so sure of your views that you do not have

to check facts. .

Worse, you show your biases when you object to the word 'unsophisticated.'

You assume that because 'unsophisticated' implies distaste in our value

system, then the same applies to everyone else's value system.

In fact, the words for 'unsophisticated' in Japanese can imply praise

The moment you begin to understand that other peoples do not have to or do

not want to share our value system, that moment will be the beginning of

your wisdom.

>If Japan has little reason to want

>anyone, it would be apologists for racism like Mr. Clark.

Oh ho, again. Back to the old distortion. slogan-chanting game. And

this time you go too far. .

Gregory Clark

Head, Research Japan Office

S603 Ark Hills Executive Tower

1-14-5 Akasaka

Minato-ku, Tokyo

107-0052

Tel: 03-3586-4147

Fax: 03-3586-4148

www.gregoryclark.net

www.gregoryclark.net/nakadaki

Dear Steve: I appreciate the reasoned tone of your message, so please do

not get me wrong. But you and your friends really do need to get your

facts right before you launch into debates.

I have never argued that the Japanese are racially homogeneous. On the

contrary, while I see little need to examine minutely the evidence of

racial heterogenity in the past (all modern societies are racial

amalgams), I am on record, frequently, in pointing out the falsity of the

tanitsu minsoku argument to explain Japanese groupism and other values.

True, the group-think phenomenon is a form of mental homogenity. But that

has little to do with racial homogenity (though many Japanese think the

two are connected). I have my own explanation for the group-think, if you

care to read what I have written (mostly in Japanese).

What I do argue is that Japanese culture (or rather its value system, of

which group-think is part), is very different (my word is tribal) from

that found in most other advanced nations, and needs to be understood

before we try to judge them on the basis of our values (I assume you are

liberal enough to agree that they are entitled of have their own value

system.) Failure to do this, plus lack of tolerance, is the main reason

why foreigners here see so much in Japan that they find hard to understand

or accept.

It is also on this basis I objected to both the Otaru and Hamamatsu

affairs, or rather the boasting that went on afterwards about how we, the

gaijin (not a derogatory term in my book), had taught the Japanese a

lesson in civilized values.

As for who is a foreigner, in the case of Japan that is easy to define.

It is those who do not belong to the Japanese value system, including its

group-think aspects. I assume you would have no problem with seeing

yourself and your friends as 'foreigners' in that context.

But while the Japanese value system is very different from ours, as a way

of organising a society the more personalist approach of the Japanese is

no worse, and often better, than our non-Japanese reliance on principles,

ideologies, argument, debate and the law courts to solve problems. This is

true, even when it comes to the handling of foreigners.

True, the occasional examples of ugly Japanese intolerance to some

foreigners and minorities are also the result of this instinctively

personalist approach. But so too are the not-insignifcant examples of

surprising Japanese tolerance to foreigners, and recently to minorities.

Since the Japanese are not caught up in the dogmatism that can so easily

affect people who operate on the basis of principles, there can be

extraordinary flexibility, mood swings and exceptions in their attitudes,

some of which I tried to list earlier. (the recent Korean boom is a good

example.) We non-Japanese tend to be more rigid in our views, both for and

against discriminations.

Part of the mood swing has been the recent shift to kokusaika that you

mention. But because the Japanese show a genuine interest in studying our

way of doing things (an interest I do not see often reciprocated,

incidentally)I am sure you would not argue that this means the Japanese

have to drop their value system and adopt our value system. Or would you?

You seem to.

The many international friendship associations around Japan are a good

example of the personalist approach in action . AS part of kokusaika,

there are many Japanese who have a genuine interest in helping foreigners

overcome their problems in adapting to Japanese society.

If there are Japanese intolerances that have to be overcome, I would have

much more respect for the foreigner who joined these associations and

helped at the personal level than I have for someone who rushes to the law

courts and, relying on unrealistic UN conventions, then boasts about his

or her victory over Japanese intolerance.

PS I do not make a big deal over nationalist reactions today to foreigners

telling Japan how to run their affairs, mainly because the nationalists

are not very aware of those activities. But back in the eighties during

the trade frictions there were ugly nationalistic posters in the streets.

The origins of prewar Japanese nationalism have been traced back to white,

mainly Anglsaxon, racial arrogance towards Japan. I detected elements of

that arrogance in the trade frictions i.e. the Japanese were not entitled

to run their economy their own way, and I see a hint of that in Western

moralistic (i.e.do-gooder) attitudes to Japan today.

Greg Clark

It doesnt matter which way you look at it, people do and always will

identify themselves with thier race. I am married to a Japanese and

have experienced Japan, and I know that they identify themselves that

way, in fact most of us do. It is so obviouse I thought you had made

that observation. If you have not yet made that observation, then

perhaps you need to go back to the drawing boards. Japan is nearly 100%

homogenous race (that too is obvious, check your facts) that gives

immense strength to thier culture, thier land, thier country. It will

weaken once the gates of immigration are let open - that is plainly

obvious given to whats happend to the west. I fail to see any logic

that can defeat that thought.

> Are we OK with that, my child? Do I have to spell everything out in simple

> sentences, simply to get round your determination to distort everything?

This says much, much more about your character than it does about me, sir.

I'm not your child, I don't want to be your child, and I feel pity for anyone who is your child.

I'm done here, I've had enough.

Just for clarification: This wasn't directed to you, but to Renak, as you can see from the original message.

Your messages have been arrogant, rude, insulting, and downright offensive. They are completely full of rage and contempt for anyone who disagrees with you. It's a waste of my time to continue to attempt to have anything resembling a mature debate with you, and I'm not going to engage with you here anymore. I'm going to dedicate my energy to more productive means of improving society, while you continue your apologizing, defending, and actively supporting institutional racism and racial discrimination. I will continue teaching and helping to open young minds, while you continue along your reactionary mantra, ranting and raving against those who dare disagree with you.

This hasn't been all unproductive, however. You've given me some excellent material to use with my classes on my units dealing with race and ethnicity, and on logical fallacies. I suppose I should at least thank you for that.

And one other thing: we aren't going away, Mr. Clark. If your goal was to insult us into submission, it has only made us more determined to stand for what is right. We will be here. Count on it.

Steve

> Let me just conclude with one thing. IN a long career involving debates

> with all kinds of people over everything from Communism and the state of

> the Japanese economy to women's liberation and Vietnam, I have never come

> across a bunch of people as immature, unworldly, rigidly dogmatic, and

> prone to childish distortion as I have seen in the course of this

> bathhouse debate.

I have encountered few people as arrogant, condescending, insulting, hypocritical, belittling, and offensive as you have been. It's really incredible.

If we go back, the particular article in question that I originally brought up only had two paragraphs that I had problems with -- the rest of it I agreed with. I only wanted to further clarify your views and ask you where you had gotten your evidence from to make your claims. Yet in your second message you said I was "from another planet", and in a follow-up message you out-and-out called me "dumb". The bile and vindictive insults only went further from there, and the last one -- calling me your "child" was completely over the top, and I'm simply not going to respond point-by-point to you anymore. I've laid out my arguments, but we continue to go around in circles, and your insults continue to get stronger and more person. And you accuse others of being immature? Unbelievable. Unlike you, I do have some dignity here, and I'm simply not going to attempt to debate directly with a human being like yourself anymore. If I felt that it contributed to a healthy debate of the issues, it would be worth my time, but it is obvious that you cannot have a mature debate without personal insults. It's really sad that someone of your experience and position would lower himself to such a level. As I've said, it says much more about your character than it does about the strength of your arguments.

I was warned by others when I posted the original message that you did not take well to people challenging you and that you treated those who disagreed with you as idiots. However, after reading more of your articles on your web site and reading your resume, I really didn't think much of it. After all, most of your articles I agreed with, and even most of the article I had originally questioned I had found to be reasonable. However, I strongly disagreed with your assertions that seeking to end racial discrimination in Japan was somehow equal to being anti-Japanese. I also disagreed, as one critic said, of your "justifying prejudice through cultural canards and pointing fingers at victims for seeking improvements". My original goal was to start a good, healthy, reasonable debate on the issues. Unfortunately, it seems impossible for you to do this without letting your uncontrollable rage burst out. It is obvious to me that you have some sort of complex against "gaijin" (which is itself a derogatory word, despite your claims to the contrary), especially those who are relative newcomers in Japan. It's obvious that you've benefited professionally from defending -- and even supporting -- racial discrimination, and claiming that others who attempt to fight it are actually racists themselves. It's really incredible to me how someone who is an apologist for racism can accuse others of seeking to end racial discrimination as racists themselves, but that is typical of the twisted logic that you have continually used against others with whom you disagree.

Unfortunately, the warnings I received about your temperament and your reaction to criticism were not only correct, but understated.

After reading an interview with you in The Australian Magazine (October 1993), I realized that this was a habitual pattern with you. It became obvious to me that you are an embittered, egotistical, angry old man who cannot escape the demons of past that still seem to haunt you. You feel that you were treated unfairly in your life, and you have projected this anger and resentment upon others who you feel threatened by. It's ironic how you rail against your being blackballed in the Australian Foreign Affairs Department for opposing the Vietnam War, yet you treat those with an opposing view of your own with a contemptuous intolerance, spewing out insults and character assassinations along the way. (For those of you willing to read it, take a look at http://www.debito.org/HELPSpring2001.html#clarkarticle) After reading the article, I felt more pity towards you than anything -- pity that a man of your age and your experience still cannot emotionally deal with perceived transgressions of the past and move forward with his life.

I see nothing productive in continuing this back and forth with such a human being as yourself. My withdrawing from this forum should not be interpreted as any lessening of my resolve, however, to stand against you and what you stand for. I have just chosen to use my energy through a more productive venue than engaging with an overgrown bully. Trust me, we will not go away. We will be here.

Steve

Mr Silver: The article you have posted was subject to defamation

proceedings, which could be revived.

It was written by someone with a strong personal grudge, and for a Rupert

Murdoch publication which for rightwing and other reasons had an interest

in harming the reputation of someone writing independently from Japan into

Australia.

I suggest you should be more careful before reproducing defamatory

materials.

Gregory Clark

Is that a threat?

I found it amusing that Mr. Clark took down the article I posted yesterday. He also said that we should "be careful" when posting such material.

Mr. Clark, is that a threat? Tut tut.

I suppose it made him uncomfortable -- I can understand why. However, the article can be found at:

http://www.debito.org/HELPSpring2001.html#clarkarticle

It has been posted there with permission from The Australian Magazine.

I wonder if Mr. Clark (or anyone else) could be so kind as to let us know what the outcome of the proceedings were? I find it ironic that Mr. Clark, who claims he is an admirer of the Japanese "non-litigious" culture, found it necessary to file defamation proceedings against the publisher. Perhaps Mr. Clark can explain why he rails against "moralists" who file suit against bathhouse owners, but feels it is necessary to sue others when there is a not-so-flattering article written about him?

Dear Steve: This is getting boring.

The article in question was filled with errors, and not just malice. I had

known the author for some time; since we were both writing for newspapers

we were colleagues of a kind in Tokyo. To sex his article up up he not

only invented quite a lot but also used a lot from personal conversations

(they were before I realised that he had this brief to start using

knives), and made it look as if I was saying all these things to him in a

formal interview. It was Murdoch gutter journalism of the worst kind, and

we had to use some pressure to force the newspaper to run a rebuttal.

I notice that you reproduce the article without the rebuttal. In this

sense you leave yourself open somewhat.

I suggest in future that if you want to get involved in personal attacks

you do more homework first.

It's really quite amusing that you point a finger at others for personal attacks.

Before you go off on another tirade of insults -- if you have a rebuttal, by all means please post it -- along with the results of your proceedings -- instead of deleting messages and making empty threats.

You said you admired the Japanese "non-litigious" society. It addition, we had this exchange earlier in the thread:

Mr. Clark: Or rather, if some of the wrongs can be righted by gentle admonition rather than aggressive legal action, then go that route instead.

Me: I agree. However, what happens when "gentle admonition" doesn't work?

Mr. Clark: Keep trying.

It seems rather hypocritical to me that you criticize others for filing suit to end racial discrimination in Japan, yet at the same time you filed suit against a publisher for printing an embarrassing article about you. You criticize us for forcing others to adhere to our principles, but it's difficult to figure out just exactly what your principles are when they keep shifting to suit your own needs.

When you get out of Rupert Murdoch's gutter, you might come to realise

that there is a big difference between deliberate slander by ugly

rightwingers with a political agenda, and a foreigner being denied a bath

by some unfortunate Japanese who has already suffered severe damage from

other foreigners.

We find again that Mr. Clark goes straight for the gutter himself as a diversion from answering the tough questions. How convenient to label me as a right-winger (really laughable in light of my political leanings, by the way) when pointing out the numerous inconsistencies in Mr. Clark's arguments Perhaps that gives Mr. Clark a "nice warm feeling in his pants", to use one of his favorite phrases, but it does little to address the fact that Mr. Clark has one set of rules for him, and another for everyone else.

To sum up, Mr. Clark admires the Japanese "non-litigious" society when it comes to racial discrimination (or whatever misnomer he wants to attempt to label it), but when it comes to alleged slander against him, that's where he draws the line. Good thing Mr. Clark didn't decide upon law as his career.

Seems like Mr. Clark is fond of having it both ways. He complains about lawsuits while having filed one himself. He claims he doesn't give merchants who practice racial discrimination his business, but he had no problem living in a racially exclusive (or whatever misnomer Mr. Clark conveniently tries to give it) housing complex himself. He cries foul when called an apologist for racial discrimination (although I struggle to come up with a better term for one who provides excuses for a merchant's right to deny entry to those of a certain race or ethnicity), yet he has no problem labeling others as "from another planet", "dumb", "children", "wimps", to name just a few, when they challenge his views and ask for (gasp!) data to support them. He's fond of calling others "bathhouse moralists"; at least there are those who have morals to stand on and not waiver from when it is convenient for them to do so.

I also notice that Mr. Clark has tended to "wimp out", to use his words, when it comes to posting the rebuttal he wrote in response to the article in question, or any details regarding the outcome of the slander proceedings. I also notice that he has twice failed to explain or apologize about allegations that Mr. Karthaus' used his family for political manipulation, a very serious allegation that has so far gone unsubstantiated. This is from the same man who accuses others of slander? Tut tut.

Did I say you were a rightwinger? Did I say I took the Murdoch people to

court? When do you answer the many questions I put to you long ago? Etc

Etc.

You are a typical example of the immature ideologue with whom reasoned

argument is impossible. I have met a lot of them over the years,

especially over Vietnam.

Pity. For a while I thought we did have the basis for an interesting

exchange of ideas. But then you went haywire.

Do you mind if I ignore further posts? As I said, you are getting

repetitive, and even worse, boring.

Sayonara.

> Did I say you were a rightwinger?

Is there another way to interpret being in "Rupert Murdoch's gutter"?

> Did I say I took the Murdoch people to

> court?

After I posted the article in question, you stated (in a post you subsequently erased): "The article you have posted was subject to defamation proceedings, which could be revived." Care to clarify?

> When do you answer the many questions I put to you long ago?

You mean after you called me your "child"? After the continual insults? After repeating my positions over and over again? I hope you didn't treat your own "children" in the same manner.

> You are a typical example of the immature ideologue with whom reasoned

> argument is impossible. I have met a lot of them over the years,

> especially over Vietnam.

I think those reading our posts can judge that for themselves. Seems to me you're not one to hold yourself up to a paragon of maturity.

> Pity. For a while I thought we did have the basis for an interesting

> exchange of ideas.

You mean before you said in your second and third posts that I was "from another planet" and that I was "dumb"? Or when you said, "What's wrong with you people?" That's the basis for an interesting exchange of ideas for you? Pitiful indeed.

> Do you mind if I ignore further posts? As I said, you are getting

> repetitive, and even worse, boring.

When you refuse to answer questions, I would admit that they can become a bit repetitive and boring.

> Sayonara.

Y que vaya bien.

(I guess we won't be getting any rebuttal from you on that magazine article. Pity.)