Math Help
Michael Cash
the following:
"According to the Ministry of Health and Welfare,
recent years have demonstated a jump in international marriages in
Japan, between Japanese and non-. There are now about 40,000
international marriages per annum in Japan--a leap of around 30% since
1999. If those families live in Japan and average about two children,
you will eventually have 80,000 new international children every year
born here. In ten years, that will be 800,000."
My math skills suck, but something tells me that there's something a
bit too 単純 about it for it to be correct. Comments?
Travers Naran
He's making the following assumptions (which may or may not be true):
- The number of international marriages per year will stay the same
without divorces, remarriages, etc. which make the calculations that
much harder. For example, a Japanese woman marries an American,
divorces him then marries another American in a year or so. That counts
as two marriages using Debito's math.
- That the live birth average for international couples is in fact 2 per
couple.
- All "international children" will be born in marriage. There maybe
more outside of marriage, but they might not count.
- No international couples or their children will ever leave Japan.
The 2nd assumption is the most problematic. Would Jeff "2-belo" care to
comment? :-)
The better way to do this is look at the actual statistics of
international children (i.e., children who aren't considered Japanese)
for the last 20 years or so and then perform interpolation on that data.
For example, according to the last figures I saw using primary data,
Brazillians will be the largest minority within Japan soon. Their
children already account for the majority of JSL students in public schools.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travers Naran | Visit the SFTV Science Blunders
F/T Programmer,P/T Meddler In Time&Space | Hall of Infamy!
New Westminster, British Columbia, |
Canada, Earth, Milky Way, etc. | <www.geocities.com/naran500/>
"Stand Back! I'm a programmer!" |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John W.
John W.
The 2-Belo
[...]
>He's making the following assumptions (which may or may not be true):
>
>- The number of international marriages per year will stay the same
>without divorces, remarriages, etc. which make the calculations that
>much harder. For example, a Japanese woman marries an American,
>divorces him then marries another American in a year or so. That counts
>as two marriages using Debito's math.
>
>- That the live birth average for international couples is in fact 2 per
>couple.
>
>- All "international children" will be born in marriage. There maybe
>more outside of marriage, but they might not count.
>
>- No international couples or their children will ever leave Japan.
>
>The 2nd assumption is the most problematic. Would Jeff "2-belo" care to
>comment? :-)
Heh. I've already fucked up his calculations! In 2013, there will only be
799,998 international children. I WIN!
--
The 2-Belo
the2belo[AT]msd[DOT]biglobe[DOT]ne[DOT]jp
news:alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk (mhm21x20)
news:alt.fan.karl-malden.nose (Meow.)
http://www.godhatesjanks.org/ (God Hates Janks!)
Processing failed. Hit any user to continue.
Ken Yasumoto-Nicolson
> Michael Cash wrote:
>
> > While skimming through Debito's statement to the High Court, I noticed
> > the following:
I was thinking of posting about this myself, so thanks for saving me
the trouble. The big problem I have with this and most other of his
writing is his plucking statistics out of the air - actually, my
biggest problem is his writing is bloody awful (so is mine, but I
don't claim to be a writer or a teacher of English), with too many big
words that look like they've just been pulled from a thesaurus for the
express purpose of sounding more pompous.
> > "According to the Ministry of Health and Welfare,
> > recent years have demonstated a jump in international marriages in
> > Japan, between Japanese and non-. There are now about 40,000
> > international marriages per annum in Japan--a leap of around 30% since
> > 1999.
If I wasn't at work, I'd check this figure, but I'm pretty sure in
2000 it was 40,000 Japanese men plus 10,000 Japanese women, but only
increasing at a much smaller rate.
> > If those families live in Japan
A *big* if - these are wedding registered in Japan, yes? I've
registered my wedding in Scotland, but I sure don't live there! I also
remember the British consul expecting I'd be on the next plane back to
Blighty after registering the marriage, which suggests a lot of gaigin
honkies bugger off back "home" sharpish.
> > and average about two children,
Are gaigin going at it like rabbits compared to the Japanese average
of 1.4? And what about fake weddings - I saw a program that had a
segment on sham marriages for visas for Chinese prostitutes.
> > you will eventually have 80,000 new international children every year
> > born here. In ten years, that will be 800,000."
> >
> > My math skills suck, but something tells me that there's something a
> > bit too 単純 about it for it to be correct. Comments?
>
> He's making the following assumptions (which may or may not be true):
>
> - The number of international marriages per year will stay the same
> without divorces, remarriages, etc. which make the calculations that
> much harder. For example, a Japanese woman marries an American,
> divorces him then marries another American in a year or so. That counts
> as two marriages using Debito's math.
>
> - That the live birth average for international couples is in fact 2 per
> couple.
>
> - All "international children" will be born in marriage. There maybe
> more outside of marriage, but they might not count.
>
> - No international couples or their children will ever leave Japan.
And what about if both partners are foreign, although that must be a
pretty small percentage.
> The 2nd assumption is the most problematic. Would Jeff "2-belo" care to
> comment? :-)
>
> The better way to do this is look at the actual statistics of
> international children (i.e., children who aren't considered Japanese)
> for the last 20 years or so and then perform interpolation on that data.
Researching another bit of data recently, I found an official-looking
figure that said 80% of Zainichi Koreans marry Japanese. As Korean
weddings make up about 30% plus of all international weddings
(hopefully correctly remembered from the book I read!), but Zainichis
are a different kettle of fish from first-generation immigrants (ie,
parents should both be pretty fluent Japanese); that I suspect knocks
another 3/10ths off the figures.
Anyway, I think the whole thing is overdone - yes, "No Gaigins" is of
course a bad thing, but this continual "Help, help, I'm being
repressed!" is tiresome. What fraction of one percent of businesses
carry out this practice? I can't help feeling all this "Woe is us!"
martyrdom is counterproductive.
Ken
Travers Naran
> Travers Naran <tna...@direct.ca> wrote in message news:<iGt5b.136054$K44.87613@edtnps84>...
>
>>international children (i.e., children who aren't considered Japanese)
>>for the last 20 years or so and then perform interpolation on that data.
>
> Researching another bit of data recently, I found an official-looking
> figure that said 80% of Zainichi Koreans marry Japanese. As Korean
> weddings make up about 30% plus of all international weddings
> (hopefully correctly remembered from the book I read!), but Zainichis
> are a different kettle of fish from first-generation immigrants (ie,
> parents should both be pretty fluent Japanese); that I suspect knocks
> another 3/10ths off the figures.
Exactly. When you get into the details of what constitutes official
definitions, your numbers start going wonky. Wonky is a proper
statistical term. ;-)
> Anyway, I think the whole thing is overdone - yes, "No Gaigins" is of
> course a bad thing, but this continual "Help, help, I'm being
> repressed!" is tiresome. What fraction of one percent of businesses
> carry out this practice? I can't help feeling all this "Woe is us!"
> martyrdom is counterproductive.
I always think it sucks that anyone anywhere gets discriminated against,
and needless to say that Japanese in North America weren't treated well
during the 19th and early 20th centuries, but I doubt it's as big a
thing as Debito claims because I've read more than enough articles from
gaijin living as immigrants to Japan saying they've generally been
treated fairly as long as they adapt to the local customs. Heck, some
of them have lived in Japan for 20+ years and said the locals treat them
as part of the "family".[1] And as you said, if a small precentage of
businesses discriminate, take your custom (and your friends' business)
to a business that doesn't discriminate. Economic pressure is the best
way to change small-scale injustices like this.
[1] I can't find the link now, but it was a profile in the Japan Times
of an Australian journalist who lived in a small Japanese town for
several decades.
Ken Yasumoto-Nicolson
wrote:
>Heck, some
>of them have lived in Japan for 20+ years and said the locals treat them
>as part of the "family".[1]
I know about discrimination against incomers, as I used to live on a
small island in Scotland with a "unique" culture, and incomers were
usually labelled "white settlers" until we found out a bit more about
them. The ones who came in and started telling us how we ought to be
living our lives, or complaining about this, that, and the other never
lost the tag, but those that accepted the community, even though they
might live their lives very differently (our Pakistani families, for
instance) encountered few problems.
Ken
Travers Naran
This is a near universal trait of humanity. Is there any evidence that
the Japanese are worse than say an American rural small-town? It seems
like people who come to Japan thinking it's a utopia or some sort of
perfect society seem to be the ones who complain the most about it.
Eric Takabayashi
> Ken Yasumoto-Nicolson wrote:
> > On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 04:25:58 GMT, Travers Naran <tna...@direct.ca>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Heck, some
> >>of them have lived in Japan for 20+ years and said the locals treat them
> >>as part of the "family".[1]
> >
> >
> > I know about discrimination against incomers, as I used to live on a
> > small island in Scotland with a "unique" culture, and incomers were
> > usually labelled "white settlers" until we found out a bit more about
> > them. The ones who came in and started telling us how we ought to be
> > living our lives, or complaining about this, that, and the other never
> > lost the tag, but those that accepted the community, even though they
> > might live their lives very differently (our Pakistani families, for
> > instance) encountered few problems.
>
> This is a near universal trait of humanity. Is there any evidence that
> the Japanese are worse than say an American rural small-town?
Are you also including urban Japanese? It can certainly be said that urban
Japanese are not as friendly as those in even a Japanese rural town, among
Japanese themselves. This most certainly has been demonstrated, by even
Japanese who've tried.
> It seems
> like people who come to Japan thinking it's a utopia or some sort of
> perfect society seem to be the ones who complain the most about it.
Not "is", because it most certainly is not, but what should be, for it is
Japanese themselves who claim as much. Or perhaps foreigners who complain
(can't imagine why) expect modern Japan or Japanese to exhibit favorable
traits seen in other modern countries years or decades earlier. Also, it seems
that Japanese in private, complain as much or more about their lives or
country they live in, as foreigners do in more public situations. For example,
if Japanese working women or housewives actually tried to change their society
to get what they wanted (such as increased rights and opportunities), as women
in other modern countries have, they wouldn't still be in the situation they
are in, despite Japan having actual laws on the books or a Constitution that
should prevent it.
Steve Sundberg
For 40,000 couples to have 80,000 children every year, they'd have to
give birth to twins each and every year. Very doubtful.
Brett Robson
Try again Steve. It's 40,000 marriages a year, 80,000 births a year.
.
----
"One way for us to be be seen as the ugly American is to go around the world
saying we do it this way so should you"
- Gov George W Bush
Steve Sundberg
>On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 04:32:18 GMT, Steve Sundberg ...
>>
>>For 40,000 couples to have 80,000 children every year, they'd have to
>>give birth to twins each and every year. Very doubtful.
>
>Try again Steve. It's 40,000 marriages a year, 80,000 births a year.
Unless I'm going completely nuts, that's what I mean.
Each one of those marriages is expected to produce 2 babies per year.
Look again at how the original paragraph (and your paraphrase) was
written.
Jim
What's written is 40,000 marriages each year. If that means there are 40,000
new "internanational" marriages each year.
Year 1: 40,000
Year 2: 80,000
Year 3: 120,000
.
.
.
Year 10: 400,000 internatational marriages (total)
400,000 x 2 sprogs per marriage equals 800,000.
Seems like a pretty impressive growth rate.
On a separate topic, does Debito include his marriage as "international"?
After all, he *is* Japanese, right? Isn't his kid therefore 100% Japanese
and not one of those "international" kids he says will be invading the
home islands in 10 years' time?
-Jim
John W.
> On 4 Sep 2003 21:40:42 -0700, Brett Robson <jet...@deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 04:32:18 GMT, Steve Sundberg ...
>>
>>>For 40,000 couples to have 80,000 children every year, they'd have to
>>>give birth to twins each and every year. Very doubtful.
>>
>>Try again Steve. It's 40,000 marriages a year, 80,000 births a year.
>
>
> Unless I'm going completely nuts, that's what I mean.
>
> Each one of those marriages is expected to produce 2 babies per year.
>
pregnant before March.
John W.
Eric Takabayashi
> On a separate topic, does Debito include his marriage as "international"?
> After all, he *is* Japanese, right? Isn't his kid therefore 100% Japanese
> and not one of those "international" kids he says will be invading the
> home islands in 10 years' time?
He probably does, but that is not really relevant, because narrow minded people
who do not know him will probably never accept him on sight as a Japanese, and
consider or treat him as a foreigner, the way Samoan blooded KONISHIKI from
Hawaii after years of citizenship and fame, is nevertheless classified as a
"gaijin tarento", or sumo fans griped there were no "Japanese" yokozuna despite
the presence of Hawaiian blooded Musashimaru, also a citizen. Bigots who
discriminate against "foreign looking" people will continue to discriminate
against people them, regardless of actual legal status or acclimation into
Japanese society.
As for Debito's children, unless they have also given up their US citizenship
much earlier than legally required, they are still American by birth. And has
been demonstrated, the more foreign looking one is considered a foreigner and
may be refused entry into a "Japanese only" establishment.
Michael Cash
belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
His wife won some elective office, and he includes her as an
"international" elected politician. On what basis, I have no fucking
idea, since his family is made up entirely of Japanese citizens.
Jim
> Jim wrote:
>
>
>>On a separate topic, does Debito include his marriage as "international"?
>>After all, he *is* Japanese, right? Isn't his kid therefore 100% Japanese
>>and not one of those "international" kids he says will be invading the
>>home islands in 10 years' time?
>
>
> He probably does, but that is not really relevant, because narrow minded people
> who do not know him will probably never accept him on sight as a Japanese, and
> consider or treat him as a foreigner, the way Samoan blooded KONISHIKI from
> Hawaii after years of citizenship and fame, is nevertheless classified as a
> "gaijin tarento", or sumo fans griped there were no "Japanese" yokozuna despite
> the presence of Hawaiian blooded Musashimaru, also a citizen. Bigots who
> discriminate against "foreign looking" people will continue to discriminate
> against people them, regardless of actual legal status or acclimation into
> Japanese society.
>
Eric, when you look at Konishiki, and someone asks you "what is he? he's
not Japanese, right?" what do you answer?
Is he Japanese? American? Hawaiian? Somoan?
Or how about yourself? Are you American? Hawaiian? Japanese? You were
born in Hawaii, right? Doesn't that mean you can call yourself Hawaiian?
Would the "native" Hawaiians agree with you?
-Jim
Eric Takabayashi
> Eric, when you look at Konishiki, and someone asks you "what is he? he's
> not Japanese, right?" what do you answer?
He's a Japanese citizen, and sumo culture has probably made him and other high level
wrestlers more "Japanese" than most native born Japanese alive today, who would
never be able to live they way they did or do, or lack the Japanese grammar or
manners.
> Is he Japanese?
Damn right he is.
> American?
According to Japanese law, probably not any more, though culturally he may have
been. His past before sumo is unclear.
> Hawaiian?
No. But that is the choice of music he plays and food he may eat. He has also
recently opened a restaurant in Roppongi Hills which serves modern Hawaiian style
food.
> Somoan?
Samoan is in his blood, but I don't know how culturally Samoan he is. He and media
make little reference to it at all, if any. But for his birth name and facial
features, most people would have difficulty recognizing him as Samoan blooded.
> Or how about yourself? Are you American?
Yes. 100%. And that is an interesting question for you to ask, and quite relevant to
the topic at hand. Is it because I am not white? Japanese don't believe it, either.
> Hawaiian?
Not at all. Not a single bit. And you're damned right to bring up the Native
(ethnic) Hawaiian issue, because most people including Americans wouldn't even think
about it. Japanese is often considered to be a race, most strongly by themselves,
but they are a wide mix of bloodlines and cultures. "Hawaiian" is not so varied as
an ethnic group, and certainly not as a culture.
> Japanese?
No, but my ancestors were. On the other hand, I also think and behave more like a
traditional Japanese than probably tens of millions of Japanese citizens, who do not
have to live with limited rights and opportunities I have to live with because of
where I was born. Interesting things happen when the natives find out I am not
"really" Japanese, or am required to produce official ID.
> You were born in Hawaii, right?
Means nothing. "Hawaiian" is people who were born like Musashimaru. There is nothing
Hawaiian about me except for food I very rarely choose to eat because I ate it as a
child.
> Doesn't that mean you can call yourself Hawaiian?
Of course not.
> Would the "native" Hawaiians agree with you?
Native Hawaiians would probably agree I and non Hawaiian blooded people are most
certainly not "Hawaiian".
But you are conveniently still getting away from the issue of Japanese racism and
exclusion (or how people may not consider ethnic or cultural minorities like
hypen-Americans or Muslims as American either). Debito is choosing to act in a non
traditional or confrontational way, but he remains a Japanese citizen, and Japanese
citizen only, yet people would deny him the rights of a Japanese because of how he
looks or where he was born. The more common examples of naturalized Japanese such as
ethnic Asians (who may have lived here since they were born and ONLY culturally
Japanese) or people who have deliberately assimilated themselves such as Rui Ramos,
Musashimaru, Akebono or KONISHIKI, should be respected and not considered "gaijin".
Eric Takabayashi
> "Hawaiian" is people who were born like Musashimaru.
Sorry, wrong guy. He was born in Samoa.
Jim
>
> But you are conveniently still getting away from the issue of Japanese racism and
> exclusion (or how people may not consider ethnic or cultural minorities like
> hypen-Americans or Muslims as American either). Debito is choosing to act in a non
> traditional or confrontational way, but he remains a Japanese citizen, and Japanese
> citizen only, yet people would deny him the rights of a Japanese because of how he
> looks or where he was born.
Well, maybe rights of a Japanese only come to those who "look" and "act" Japanese?
I know that in the USA, your ethnic background doesn't matter one whit when
determining citizenship... it's all geographical "where were you born". For native-
born Americans, anyway.
It seems Japan doesn't have such a concept of being "native-born" Japanese... unless
your parents are racially Japanese (whatever that means).
You think that Japanese culture should be changed to imitate the American model?
I know that the world over people will tend to congregate in groups and exclude
the outsiders, but I think you are more concerned with state-sponsored or sanctioned
discrimination like in Japan, right?
> The more common examples of naturalized Japanese such as
> ethnic Asians (who may have lived here since they were born and ONLY culturally
> Japanese) or people who have deliberately assimilated themselves such as Rui Ramos,
> Musashimaru, Akebono or KONISHIKI, should be respected and not considered "gaijin".
>
So you *are* agreeing with most Japanese that if you look and talk like a native,
you're not a gaigin but Japanese? And all those people who dont't look, act and
speak like Japanese shouldn't be respected, either?
-Jim
Eric Takabayashi
> Well, maybe rights of a Japanese only come to those who "look" and "act" Japanese?
As people like Debito, or even I have demonstrated, "look" in and of itself, is very
important. This is precisely the problem, particularly in Japan.
> I know that in the USA, your ethnic background doesn't matter one whit when
> determining citizenship...
Incorrect. Americans and others, as I have mentioned, have their own notions of what
"Americans" look or act like, or where they are born.
> it's all geographical "where were you born". For native-
> born Americans, anyway.
I'm a native born American. And people, including Americans, still don't believe it. I
am almost invariably mistaken for a Japanese tourist when I return home, where people
greet me with "Irasshaimase!" when I walk into a business, then turn away when I tell
them I am not Japanese. Once when I took my sick daughter in to the local hospital, the
hospital I have been to since childhood, the woman even derisively referred to me as a
"Japanese tourist" without insurance, not a US citizen or Hawaii resident who was paying
cash.
> It seems Japan doesn't have such a concept of being "native-born" Japanese...
Because they are ignorant of their own origins despite research and hours long
television specials devoted to them. Even the Emperor publicly acknowledged that he is
descended from Koreans. Japanese genetic traits such as their physical proportions and
long life spans, also developed from people across the Asian continent.
> unless your parents are racially Japanese (whatever that means).
"Racially Japanese" actually means nothing.
> You think that Japanese culture should be changed to imitate the American model?
We are not talking about that. We are talking about how exclusionist or racist Japanese
are. Those are legal issues, particularly when one is a citizen like Debito, and Japan
has signed international agreements against discrimination. If Japanese want to
discriminate freely, they'd better change their Constitution and other laws, as well as
not join international agreements.
> I know that the world over people will tend to congregate in groups and exclude
> the outsiders, but I think you are more concerned with state-sponsored or sanctioned
> discrimination like in Japan, right?
Yes, because that is precisely what we are talking about in this part of the thread. If
you'd like to bash racism in the US or at the hands of caucasians, for example, or anti
white sentiments of some minorities, you are welcome to do that.
> > The more common examples of naturalized Japanese such as
> > ethnic Asians (who may have lived here since they were born and ONLY culturally
> > Japanese) or people who have deliberately assimilated themselves such as Rui Ramos,
> > Musashimaru, Akebono or KONISHIKI, should be respected and not considered "gaijin".
>
> So you *are* agreeing with most Japanese that if you look and talk like a native,
> you're not a gaigin but Japanese?
No, I clearly say things like ethnic Samoan people from Hawaii who come up in the strict
traditional sumo culture are more "Japanese" than most native born Japanese alive. Can
you read?
> And all those people who dont't look, act and
> speak like Japanese shouldn't be respected, either?
I said they SHOULD be respected as Japanese and NOT considered gaijin as clearly written
above.
So let's get back to you asking me if I am American. What did you mean by that?
Jim
> Jim wrote:
>
>
>>determining citizenship...
>
>
> Incorrect. Americans and others, as I have mentioned, have their own notions of what
> "Americans" look or act like, or where they are born.
>
>
I was just making the argument that in the USA, it would be difficult to have
a "non-Americans not allowed" sign in a place of business. And have the court
system ignore any protests about the sign/policy. In Japan, it seems that
a "non-Japanese not allowed" policy at the door is not as frowned upon.
>
>
> I'm a native born American. And people, including Americans, still don't believe it. I
> am almost invariably mistaken for a Japanese tourist when I return home, where people
> greet me with "Irasshaimase!" when I walk into a business, then turn away when I tell
> them I am not Japanese. Once when I took my sick daughter in to the local hospital, the
> hospital I have been to since childhood, the woman even derisively referred to me as a
> "Japanese tourist" without insurance, not a US citizen or Hawaii resident who was paying
> cash.
>
We all have our crosses to bear. The "ugly Americans" have pretty much spoiled many
countries that I might want to visit because I somewhat resemble them, much like the visiting
Japanese tourists have made your life a bit difficult in Hawaii. And now Bush & Co.
have made travel to a lot of the world a dangerous proposition for Whitey.
>
>>>The more common examples of naturalized Japanese such as
>>>ethnic Asians (who may have lived here since they were born and ONLY culturally
>>>Japanese) or people who have deliberately assimilated themselves such as Rui Ramos,
>>>Musashimaru, Akebono or KONISHIKI, should be respected and not considered "gaijin".
>>
>>So you *are* agreeing with most Japanese that if you look and talk like a native,
>>you're not a gaigin but Japanese?
>
>
> No, I clearly say things like ethnic Samoan people from Hawaii who come up in the strict
> traditional sumo culture are more "Japanese" than most native born Japanese alive. Can
> you read?
>
Yeah, I can read. Can you write? I'm not a mind reader. Please point out where you
"clearly say things like ethnic Samoan people from Hawaii who come up in the strict
traditional sumo culture are more "Japanese" than most native born Japanese alive".
In this thread; I haven't read all your postings over the past few years.
>
>>And all those people who dont't look, act and
>>speak like Japanese shouldn't be respected, either?
>
>
> I said they SHOULD be respected as Japanese and NOT considered gaijin as clearly written
> above.
>
I felt you wrote they should be respected as Japanese because of their efforts to
assimilate, and conversely that people who *don't* try to assimilate aren't worthy
of respect. Hence my comment.
> So let's get back to you asking me if I am American. What did you mean by that?
>
Well, I didn't know if you kept your American citizenship or not, and I still don't.
I don't know if you think like Debito and pretend you can switch your heritage by
getting a new passport. And I really don't regard "American" as being much of anything \
except a tax status. Others may be a bit more patriotic.
BTW, is there something in Japanese law that says it's OK to discriminate against
non-Japanese citizens? Why does Debito feel that getting the Japanese passport
makes his discrimination claims more valid? Do you have to be a Japanese citizen
to sue someone in Japan?
-Jim
Eric Takabayashi
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> > Jim wrote:
> >
> >>I know that in the USA, your ethnic background doesn't matter one whit when
> >>determining citizenship...
> >
> > Incorrect. Americans and others, as I have mentioned, have their own notions of what
> > "Americans" look or act like, or where they are born.
>
> I was just making the argument that in the USA, it would be difficult to have
> a "non-Americans not allowed" sign in a place of business.
Yes. That is why the majority of racists probably keep their intentions or feelings hidden. It
would be a stupid white person to put a "Whites Only" sign outside their business. This does not
mean that blacks and other minorities are free to do as they please, however.
> And have the court system ignore any protests about the sign/policy.
You mean if it is reported or contested, like at men's clubs without women, or country clubs
without black members.
> In Japan, it seems that a "non-Japanese not allowed" policy at the door is not as frowned
> upon.
Yes, and Japan is what we are talking about.
> > I'm a native born American. And people, including Americans, still don't believe it. I
> > am almost invariably mistaken for a Japanese tourist when I return home, where people
> > greet me with "Irasshaimase!" when I walk into a business, then turn away when I tell
> > them I am not Japanese. Once when I took my sick daughter in to the local hospital, the
> > hospital I have been to since childhood, the woman even derisively referred to me as a
> > "Japanese tourist" without insurance, not a US citizen or Hawaii resident who was paying
> > cash.
>
> We all have our crosses to bear. The "ugly Americans" have pretty much spoiled many
> countries that I might want to visit because I somewhat resemble them,
Then you should understand such a problem full well, and not have to make excuses for Japanese
and their narrow-mindedness, ignorance, or outright discriminatory ideas or practices.
> much like the visiting Japanese tourists have made your life a bit difficult in Hawaii.
I do not blame Japanese tourists for my problem. I blame narrow-mindedness, ignorance or racists
in the US. And unfavorable treatment of foreigners in Japan is not the fault of Americans in
Japan, either, because you may notice the vast majority of foreigners in Japan, the "low status"
ones who are subject to such treatment as being harassed by police or assaulted by Japanese
racists, are not white or American, and discrimination has continued since before American
contact. I much prefer being an Asian looking American in Japan, to being an Asian national or
descendant of Chinese or Korean resident aliens.
> And now Bush & Co. have made travel to a lot of the world a dangerous proposition for Whitey.
No, bigots and zealots in those countries make travel a dangerous proposition.
> >>>The more common examples of naturalized Japanese such as
> >>>ethnic Asians (who may have lived here since they were born and ONLY culturally
> >>>Japanese) or people who have deliberately assimilated themselves such as Rui Ramos,
> >>>Musashimaru, Akebono or KONISHIKI, should be respected and not considered "gaijin".
> >>
> >>So you *are* agreeing with most Japanese that if you look and talk like a native,
> >>you're not a gaigin but Japanese?
> >
> > No, I clearly say things like ethnic Samoan people from Hawaii who come up in the strict
> > traditional sumo culture are more "Japanese" than most native born Japanese alive. Can
> > you read?
>
> Yeah, I can read. Can you write? I'm not a mind reader. Please point out where you
> "clearly say things like ethnic Samoan people from Hawaii who come up in the strict
> traditional sumo culture are more "Japanese" than most native born Japanese alive".
The post you responded to, when I brought up the foreign sumo wrestlers right at the top.
> In this thread; I haven't read all your postings over the past few years.
> >
> >>And all those people who dont't look, act and
> >>speak like Japanese shouldn't be respected, either?
> >
> > I said they SHOULD be respected as Japanese and NOT considered gaijin as clearly written
> > above.
>
> I felt you wrote they should be respected as Japanese because of their efforts to
> assimilate, and conversely that people who *don't* try to assimilate aren't worthy
> of respect.
Remember that in the post you responded to, I pointed out that Debito is JAPANESE.
So you can read. Can you remember?
> Hence my comment.
Because you cannot remember back one post. I watched Memento last week. Such a life must be a
problem for you.
> > So let's get back to you asking me if I am American. What did you mean by that?
>
> Well, I didn't know if you kept your American citizenship or not,
I am an American citizen, because Americans are born that way, and I have never changed it, nor
taken up citizenship of any other nation.
Why do you believe I have done anything otherwise, or am anything but an American citizen?
> and I still don't. I don't know if you think like Debito and pretend you can switch your
> heritage by getting a new passport.
It's NOT about heritage. It has nothing to do with heritage. That is why I make references to
"culturally" American, etc., because no, you cannot change your ethnicity or heritage.
It's about citizenship and rights that should be legally protected, because they ARE laid out by
the laws of that country, which Japanese and you seem not to understand.
> And I really don't regard "American" as being much of anything \
> except a tax status. Others may be a bit more patriotic.
That's right. "American" as a label means not much at all, because it's just a piece of paper,
and people shouldn't read into it to mean white, Christian, eater of bread or potatoes,
warmonger, or anything else. Being a self identified "Republican" or "supporter of Bush", on the
other hand, does hold meaning.
> BTW, is there something in Japanese law that says it's OK to discriminate against non-Japanese
> citizens?
Not really. Rather, the LACK of an explicit law against it, as it is claimed by Japanese that
the Constitution only protects citizens. That is how law often works.
> Why does Debito feel that getting the Japanese passport
> makes his discrimination claims more valid?
Because he IS a citizen, protected by the Japanese Constitution, no matter how he looks.
> Do you have to be a Japanese citizen to sue someone in Japan?
No, as the lady Brazilian journalist proved after being kicked out of a Japanese business,
though it was the first time ever such a discrimination case was won.
Scott Reynolds
> BTW, is there something in Japanese law that says it's OK to discriminate against
> non-Japanese citizens?
No. It's just that there are no laws (except for the constitution)
specifically prohibiting discrimination on the basis of racial or ethnic
background.
> Why does Debito feel that getting the Japanese passport
> makes his discrimination claims more valid?
Because the Japanese constitution prohibits "discrimination in
political, economic or social relations because of race, creed, sex,
social status or family origin" (Article 14). It is sometimes argued
that this constitutional protection does not apply to non-citizens, however.
> Do you have to be a Japanese citizen
> to sue someone in Japan?
Nope. You just need to have sufficient funds and a lot of patience.
--
_______________________________________________________________
Scott Reynolds s...@gol.com