I am infuriated.

[RevolutionaryThinker]

Hello all, I haven't been on this website in awhile, I usually come here if I have questions, which I do now. Also, I am a devout Socialist these days, when I first joined I wasn't so sure but I've been studying! :) I still have a lot more to learn though.

Anyways as the titles says I am infuriated! And I'll tell you why. So a few days ago I was researching and I found that in Japan you have to actually have 'Japanese blood' to be a citizen of that country, or go through a very hard process called 'assimilation'. I never knew Japan was so obsessed with preserving their 'race'. This made me infuriated, I mean just imagine if you had to have a 'German bloodline' to have citizenship in Germany! People would go nuts! But no one makes a sound if Japan is doing it??? That's what infuriates me. It's racist, and someone needs to change how the system works over there.

It made me super upset when I found out that there are people who are born in Japan but are still not citizens because they don't have 'Japanese blood'. Well what the hell???? The worst part is it seems like people on the left don't really care about this. But I bet they would if a European country acted like this. As red as I am, I do have to point out hypocrisy when I have to.

Also, another thing that really infuriated me, when doing research on South Africa, that Vodacom, a South African company only hires black South Africans. What?? And where was the outrage?? No, not a big deal apparently. Vodacom is renowned worldwide, yet no boycotts or anything. Didn't even make headlies anywhere I don't think. It's like Burger King only hiring white people. You know what I mean, there would be an outrage. But when this happens? Nope.

I want to know what you guys think. To me you people on this website represent the Left, so I want to hear your opinions to see what the Left REALLY thinks about all this. I made another thread about reverse discrimination in the past. Although affirmative action is a good thing this is way too far. White people should at least have a chance. I mean, come on! Also, I want to know what you guys think about Japan's laws.

Thanks guys.

[The Disillusionist]

Nothing against Japanese people themselves, or people of any ethnicitiy, but I am a little wary of Japanese culture. Unlike Germany, Japan was not really forced to confront or even acknowledge its atrocities after World War II, because Europeans and Americans didn't really care about the Chinese. Perhaps partially as a result, there is a growing Nazi chic subculture in Japan, and feelings of ethnic superiority in Japan are very much alive today. Add to that an extreme degree of sexual and emotional repression as a result of their traditional values, and Japanese culture seems to me like a powder keg just waiting to explode into something terrible.

Also... sure, the Vodacom thing is bad, but I don't really care much about all that "reverse racism" whining by white people. It's just an attempt to undermine talk about real racial injustice. I'll worry about companies that only hire black people when black people are truly equal. Until then, the systemic oppression that black people face is far more threatening to social progress than a single business that only hires black people.

[RevolutionaryThinker]

Nothing against Japanese people themselves, or people of any ethnicitiy, but I am a little wary of Japanese culture. Unlike Germany, Japan was not really forced to confront or even acknowledge its atrocities after World War II, because Europeans and Americans didn't really care about the Chinese. Perhaps partially as a result, there is a growing Nazi chic subculture in Japan, and feelings of ethnic superiority in Japan are very much alive today. Add to that an extreme degree of sexual and emotional repression as a result of their traditional values, and Japanese culture seems to me like a powder keg just waiting to explode into something terrible.

Also... sure, the Vodacom thing is bad, but I don't really care much about all that "reverse racism" whining by white people. It's just an attempt to undermine talk about real racial injustice. I'll worry about companies that only hire black people when black people are truly equal. Until then, the systemic oppression that black people face is far more threatening to social progress than a single business that only hires black people.

Agreed 100%

And your right, it's not like white South Africans are oppressed, if they cannot get a job there it will be pretty easy for them to get one somwehere else. That's the thing. Still ticked me off a bit though.

[consuming negativity]

Nothing against Japanese people themselves, or people of any ethnicitiy, but I am a little wary of Japanese culture. Unlike Germany, Japan was not really forced to confront or even acknowledge its atrocities after World War II, because Europeans and Americans didn't really care about the Chinese. Perhaps partially as a result, there is a growing Nazi chic subculture in Japan, and feelings of ethnic superiority in Japan are very much alive today. Add to that an extreme degree of sexual and emotional repression as a result of their traditional values, and Japanese culture seems to me like a powder keg just waiting to explode into something terrible.

Also... sure, the Vodacom thing is bad, but I don't really care much about all that "reverse racism" whining by white people. It's just an attempt to undermine talk about real racial injustice. I'll worry about companies that only hire black people when black people are truly equal. Until then, the systemic oppression that black people face is far more threatening to social progress than a single business that only hires black people.

No, actually, the majority of the "sexual and emotional repression" in Japan today was imported from the West in the late 1800s during the Meiji period, or was imposed on Japan as part of its terms of surrender in WWII.

[The Disillusionist]

No, actually, the majority of the "sexual and emotional repression" in Japan today was imported from the West in the late 1800s during the Meiji period, or was imposed on Japan as part of its terms of surrender in WWII.

You may have a point there, but a culture that advocates suicide as a response to situations it deems disgraceful is bound to have some internal conflict. I'm sure the west didn't help the situation, but I would imagine Japanese culture has been very formal and repressed for a long, long time. However, I'll freely admit that I don't even know what the Meiji period is, I'm not a historian of Eastern cultures.

[consuming negativity]

You may have a point there, but a culture that advocates suicide as a response to situations it deems disgraceful is bound to have some internal conflict. I'm sure the west didn't help the situation, but I would imagine Japanese culture has been very formal and repressed for a long, long time. However, I'll freely admit that I don't even know what the Meiji period is, I'm not a historian of Eastern cultures.

Suicide was never advocated in Japan. In fact, people who committed suicide in traditional Japan were completely removed from memory entirely; their names were removed from documents, nobody spoke of them again, and society acted as if they had never existed. So then why would people do this? Out of loyalty to their family and the honor of their family; by killing themselves it would be as if they had never brought that disgrace to their families because their memory would be struck from record.

The Meiji period started with the restoration of the Empire of Japan, but for our purposes here, it is important because it is the era in which Japan began industrializing and cast off its version of feudalism. Obviously, during this time period, it was looking to the West for inspiration and for technological purposes, and this is what facilitated the Western influence on Japanese culture, which has historically been the exact opposite of what you're describing here.

[Sabot Cat]

You may have a point there, but a culture that advocates suicide as a response to situations it deems disgraceful is bound to have some internal conflict. I'm sure the west didn't help the situation, but I would imagine Japanese culture has been very formal and repressed for a long, long time. However, I'll freely admit that I don't even know what the Meiji period is, I'm not a historian of Eastern cultures.

Yeah, it sounds like what you know about Japanese culture is primarily stereotypes about them being sexually and emotionally repressed weirdos on the precipice of suicide.

[The Disillusionist]

Suicide was never advocated in Japan. In fact, people who committed suicide in traditional Japan were completely removed from memory entirely; their names were removed from documents, nobody spoke of them again, and society acted as if they had never existed. So then why would people do this? Out of loyalty to their family and the honor of their family; by killing themselves it would be as if they had never brought that disgrace to their families because their memory would be struck from record.

The Meiji period started with the restoration of the Empire of Japan, but for our purposes here, it is important because it is the era in which Japan began industrializing and cast off its version of feudalism. Obviously, during this time period, it was looking to the West for inspiration and for technological purposes, and this is what facilitated the Western influence on Japanese culture, which has historically been the exact opposite of what you're describing here.

Interesting history lesson. Thanks.

That concept of honor and dishonor is exactly what I'm talking about though, I'm sure that created a lot of repressed social tension.

However, I would imagine that you are right, it was probably the influence of western Victorianism that imposed its social and sexual mores on Japanese culture.

But, the historical cause aside, the fact remains that Japanese culture today is rather repressive, bearing elements today of that honor system and those social and sexual expectations. This results is an underlying tension that can lead to severe problems. For example, Japan has an extraordinarily high rate of male suicide today.

[The Disillusionist]

Yeah, it sounds like what you know about Japanese culture is primarily stereotypes about them being sexually and emotionally repressed weirdos on the precipice of suicide.

I'm not calling anyone wierdos, I'm just saying that there are some issues. American culture is ridiculously repressed in many ways as well.

[Sabot Cat]

I'm not calling anyone wierdos, I'm just saying that there are some issues.

Why do these 'issues' just sound like a repetition of tired stereotypes?

[The Disillusionist]

Why do these 'issues' just sound like a repetition of tired stereotypes?

I don't know. Maybe those stereotypes have some basis in fact? I'm not trying to bully Japanese culture, but I also don't believe in venerating it as many Americans tend to do.

[Sabot Cat]

I don't know. Maybe those stereotypes have some basis in fact? I'm not trying to bully Japanese culture, but I also don't believe in venerating it as many Americans tend to do.

I generally don't think it's prudent to see problems in terms of 'culture' as opposed to the material conditions which produce it.

[The Disillusionist]

I generally don't think it's prudent to see problems in terms of 'culture' as opposed to the material conditions which produce it.

Rather than getting into yet another argument about materialistic determinism, I will simply say that yes, you do have a point, though that point is not completely, 100% true.

[Tim Cornelis]

Japan and Korea, and to a lesser extend China, tend to have strong ethnic nationalist undertones. Although it usually also lacks chauvinist and jingoist rhetoric, so it's sort of veiled to the outside world. (Of course, the far-right does use such rhetoric and has seen a modest rise in Japan.) But you'll notice when you're a non-Japanese or non-Korean person in East Asia. 'White'/European people are somewhat negatively perceived, as drunkards and decadent drug users, but mostly respected as far as I know. The browner you get, the lower you are -- which has a really negative effect for Austronesians. This has roots in classicism, where tan Asians are considered lower in the social scale because it implies working in the fields.
Japan is comparatively conservative in social attitudes (racist and sexist) compared to many Western countries.

And as OP said, very strict racist migration controls. Combined with the needs of capital and conservative sexist attitudes, the fertility rate is very low, so there is an ageing population. And conservative racist attitudes makes that they are unwilling to open the borders. Not sure how these backward attitudes can be broken down. Culture doesn't really lend itself well to external manipulation. 'Stereotypes' about sexual repression are based in fact. Women are expected to be submissive and mostly housewives, and sexual activity has dropped. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/young-people-japan-stopped-having-sex)


"Also, another thing that really infuriated me, when doing research on South Africa, that Vodacom, a South African company only hires black South Africans. What?? And where was the outrage?? No, not a big deal apparently. Vodacom is renowned worldwide, yet no boycotts or anything. Didn't even make headlies anywhere I don't think. It's like Burger King only hiring white people. You know what I mean, there would be an outrage. But when this happens? Nope. "

No it's not like only hiring 'white'/European people. If the labour market functions discriminatingly, then such affirmative action corrects for this racial discrimination and actually creates equality. If Burger King only started hiring European people, it would exacerbate the racial discrimination of the labour market and enhance inequality.

Of course, North Korea is the most ethnic nationalist chauvinist regime in the region, with disgusting racist policies like forceful abortions when the fetus is suspected of being interracial (usually part Chinese). The few Westerners and such in North Korea are also virtually exclusively married to other non-Koreans.

[Sabot Cat]

Rather than getting into yet another argument about materialistic determinism, I will simply say that yes, you do have a point, though that point is not completely, 100% true.

Agreed; I wouldn't feel I'd have a sufficient epistemic justification for claiming as much. Sometimes culture matters.

[Lord Testicles]

Suicide was never advocated in Japan. In fact, people who committed suicide in traditional Japan were completely removed from memory entirely; their names were removed from documents, nobody spoke of them again, and society acted as if they had never existed. So then why would people do this? Out of loyalty to their family and the honor of their family; by killing themselves it would be as if they had never brought that disgrace to their families because their memory would be struck from record.


Someone should edit this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Japan#Cultural_attitude_toward_suicide) wikipedia article then...

Also, what is your source for the above? Because far from being completely expunged from history we still have recorded events of notable people in Japanese history committing suicide from as far back as 1170CE - 1180CE.

[consuming negativity]

Someone should edit this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Japan#Cultural_attitude_toward_suicide) wikipedia article then...

Also, what is your source for the above? Because far from being completely expunged from history we still have recorded events of notable people in Japanese history committing suicide from as far back as 1170CE - 1180CE.

A poor citation used in the article you posted says the following:


How do we know what acts are to qualify as suicide? As indicated above social attitudes are commonly reflected in a culture’s conception of the term. Such attitudes also seem to be reflected in just how clearly the word is defined. In cultures where suicide has approval there is a strong understanding of suicide. In Japanese culture, for example, there are basically two types of suicide: honorable and dishonorable suicide. Honorable suicide is a means of protecting the reputation of one’s family after a member has been found guilty a of dishonorable deed such as embezzlement or flunking out of college, or to save the nation as in the case of the kamikaze pilots in World War II. Dishonorable suicide is when one takes his or her life for personal reasons in order to escape some turmoil. This is thought of as a cowardly way out of life and a coward can only bring dishonor to his family. Thus, the definition of suicide in Japanese culture is positive and for the most part concisely defined.

So, exactly what I said about how the suicide is in order to protect honor. How could that be done by killing oneself if there was no expungement of the dishonor created by the act? We can use this to source my claims through simple logical deducation, although it is worth noting that the author here doesn't cite their claims themselves and additionally makes a misleading dichotomy between "honorable" and "dishonorable" suicide. But this, like the Wikipedia article you linked, is primarily focused on a tangentially-related topic. In the case of this person, they're talking about suicide as a phenomenon and using examples from Japan, whereas the article you linked is almost entirely dealing with the modern problems that Japan is having with suicide. That said, it actually backs up my point by showing how misleading the first citation was; they rightly identify that in this case suicide is considered morally responsible rather than an action that brings honor on a person or their family. As for the rest, we can again turn to this citation, because he makes it clear in his bad dichotomy that certain types of suicide were looked down upon highly; that is, the suicides that were for the self - to "get out of society" - were considered extremely cowardly and were not at all encouraged.

My original source is a college professor with Ph.D in sociology and a lifelong interest in the cultures, societies, and political economies of eastern Asia; specifically China but also Japan, Korea, and the rest.

[consuming negativity]

Edit won't work, so there is a link to the citation I quoted: http://www.ohio.edu/ethics/2001-conferences/the-moral-dimensions-of-properly-evaluating-and-defining-suicide/index.html

Also: the existence of evidence of high-profile suicides that are considered morally sound doesn't disprove my point about full expungement, especially in light of what I just said. That said, I'm not going to go and find you a citation for it, because it is mostly irrelevant and the bulk of what I've said I've already given citation for that is satisfactory according to what you linked to me.

[Lord Testicles]

I said that someone needs to edit that article since it says things like: "The cultural heritage of suicide as a noble tradition still has some resonance."

Now, I generally view suicide as something that you so when you're between a rock and a hard place or when you've literally had enough, I'm not convinced that anyone views it as a "noble tradition."



So, exactly what I said about how the suicide is in order to protect honor. How could that be done by killing oneself if there was no expungement of the dishonor created by the act?


What?

I want a source for you claim that:

"In fact, people who committed suicide in traditional Japan were completely removed from memory entirely; their names were removed from documents, nobody spoke of them again, and society acted as if they had never existed."

Which I find to be a dubious claim because we know of people like Minamoto no Yorimasa or Azai Nagamasa whose memory obviously, clearly hasn't been completely removed.


My original source is a college professor with Ph.D in sociology and a lifelong interest in the cultures, societies, and political economies of eastern Asia; specifically China but also Japan, Korea, and the rest.

When I ask for a source it's because I want to read it. What good is your old college professor to me?



Also: the existence of evidence of high-profile suicides that are considered morally sound doesn't disprove my point about full expungement, especially in light of what I just said.

The thing is it doesn't prove it either.

[consuming negativity]

I hate it when people chop up my posts. It's annoying as shit, and please avoid it in the future.

Thank you.


I said that someone needs to edit that article since it says things like: "The cultural heritage of suicide as a noble tradition still has some resonance."

Now, I generally view suicide as something that you so when you're between a rock and a hard place or when you've literally had enough, I'm not convinced that anyone views it as a "noble tradition."

What?

I want a source for you claim that:

"In fact, people who committed suicide in traditional Japan were completely removed from memory entirely; their names were removed from documents, nobody spoke of them again, and society acted as if they had never existed."

Which I find to be a dubious claim because we know of people like Minamoto no Yorimasa or Azai Nagamasa whose memory obviously, clearly hasn't been completely removed.

When I ask for a source it's because I want to read it. What good is your old college professor to me?

The thing is it doesn't prove it either.

We know that attempts to remove people from the records of history have been tried in many societies; ancient Egypt tried it with Akhenaten and also with one of their female rulers. I want to say Nefertiti. But either way, the point is that you can't really erase the legacy of a ruler no matter how shitty your technology is, because the impact created by such a person makes such a task unfeasible. The Romans also had a concept like this and they called it "damnatio memoriae". As you can see in the Wiki article, lots of cultures had similar practices, and many of the people given this sentence we still know about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnatio_memoriae

And I know that you can't talk to my professor, but I answered your question truthfully anyway. What you also can't do, though, is talk down to me like that and continue to receive responses. Simply put, I'm too lazy to go hunt down sources for you because whether or not you believe what I said doesn't matter to me. I trust my source for my own purposes, and my statements are verifiable if one bothers to look, so if you want a different source that you consider to be more reliable (which isn't a bad thing), go hunt it down yourself. Or you can dismiss it without evidence: again, I don't care.

[Lord Testicles]

I hate it when people chop up my posts. It's annoying as shit, and please avoid it in the future.

Thank you.


No, fuck your request.


We know that attempts to remove people from the records of history have been tried in many societies; ancient Egypt tried it with Akhenaten and also with one of their female rulers. I want to say Nefertiti. But either way, the point is that you can't really erase the legacy of a ruler no matter how shitty your technology is, because the impact created by such a person makes such a task unfeasible. The Romans also had a concept like this and they called it "damnatio memoriae". As you can see in the Wiki article, lots of cultures had similar practices, and many of the people given this sentence we still know about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnatio_memoriae

I know, I've seen the damage done to Egyptian temples and monuments where either they or later Christians have chiselled away the images and cartouches.

I know it happened in history.

What I'm asking for, simply, is evidence or a source that this happened in Japan. It's not that I don't believe you it's that I'm interested in reading it. I don't understand why you have to be such a defensive prick.


And I know that you can't talk to my professor, but I answered your question truthfully anyway. What you also can't do, though, is talk down to me like that and continue to receive responses. Simply put, I'm too lazy to go hunt down sources for you because whether or not you believe what I said doesn't matter to me. I trust my source for my own purposes, and my statements are verifiable if one bothers to look, so if you want a different source that you consider to be more reliable (which isn't a bad thing), go hunt it down yourself. Or you can dismiss it without evidence: again, I don't care.

Oh, go and play in the motorway.

It's painfully obvious that the only reason you type all of this irrelevant crap is because it's clearly so difficult for you to source the bullshit you've been spewing.

[consuming negativity]

No, fuck your request.

I know, I've seen the damage done to Egyptian temples and monuments where either they or later Christians have chiselled away the images and cartouches.

I know it happened in history.

What I'm asking for, simply, is evidence or a source that this happened in Japan. It's not that I don't believe you it's that I'm interested in reading it. I don't understand why you have to be such a defensive prick.

Oh, go and play in the motorway.

It's painfully obvious that the only reason you type all of this irrelevant crap is because it's clearly so difficult for you to source the bullshit you've been spewing.

lol

k - i'm out.

[Lord Testicles]

lol

k - i'm out.

Yes, you saw how aggressive that post was before I posted it and that's why you adopted such a defensive stance in the posts previous to it, makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

Whatever, as long as you don't have to provide a basis for what you're saying then it's all cool.

[RevolutionaryThinker]

You know, this talk about western culture making Japanese culture what it is now - which I do believe has a lot of truth to it - reminds me of something.

I could be wrong, but I think in ancient Ireland men and women had complete equal status. Again, I could be wrong, just thought I read that in a book I have on Ireland.

[RevolutionaryThinker]

lol

k - i'm out.

No don't leave my thread :( You don't have to talk to him but that doesn't mean you have to leave the thread completely.

[RevolutionaryThinker]

What I mean is everyone should get along.

[Tim Cornelis]

True.

[Chomskyan]

Hello all, I haven't been on this website in awhile, I usually come here if I have questions, which I do now. Also, I am a devout Socialist these days, when I first joined I wasn't so sure but I've been studying! :) I still have a lot more to learn though.

Anyways as the titles says I am infuriated! And I'll tell you why. So a few days ago I was researching and I found that in Japan you have to actually have 'Japanese blood' to be a citizen of that country, or go through a very hard process called 'assimilation'. I never knew Japan was so obsessed with preserving their 'race'. This made me infuriated, I mean just imagine if you had to have a 'German bloodline' to have citizenship in Germany! People would go nuts! But no one makes a sound if Japan is doing it??? That's what infuriates me. It's racist, and someone needs to change how the system works over there.

It made me super upset when I found out that there are people who are born in Japan but are still not citizens because they don't have 'Japanese blood'. Well what the hell???? The worst part is it seems like people on the left don't really care about this. But I bet they would if a European country acted like this. As red as I am, I do have to point out hypocrisy when I have to.

Also, another thing that really infuriated me, when doing research on South Africa, that Vodacom, a South African company only hires black South Africans. What?? And where was the outrage?? No, not a big deal apparently. Vodacom is renowned worldwide, yet no boycotts or anything. Didn't even make headlies anywhere I don't think. It's like Burger King only hiring white people. You know what I mean, there would be an outrage. But when this happens? Nope.

I want to know what you guys think. To me you people on this website represent the Left, so I want to hear your opinions to see what the Left REALLY thinks about all this. I made another thread about reverse discrimination in the past. Although affirmative action is a good thing this is way too far. White people should at least have a chance. I mean, come on! Also, I want to know what you guys think about Japan's laws.

Thanks guys.

Japan is a strange case. On the one hand, Japanese history is filled with taking and incorporating what they want or like from other people's and cultures, and making it "Japanese" in some way, they also have a capitalist system which caters to a world market (in food, tourism and entertainment for example,) and a pervasive attitude in Japanese society that people should get along with others no matter what their racial character is. On the other hand, Japan wants a uniformly "Japanese" society despite these things. They won't be able to have their cake and eat it too in the long run. Japanese birth rates will make the country's economy unstable in the long term, they'll need "non-Japanese" immigration in order to keep their country strong.

[Palmares]

Agreed 100%

And your right, it's not like white South Africans are oppressed, if they cannot get a job there it will be pretty easy for them to get one somwehere else. That's the thing. Still ticked me off a bit though.

Does it still tick you off? I hope not.


Re:Japan, though I didn't know the extent to which it's laws are harsh for "non-Japanese" to become citizens was, I am well acquainted with how difficult it to marry into Japanese citizenship. It has this strange archaic laws that require you to have permission from the Japanese person's parents in order to be eligible. One friend of mine was lucky that he got along with his parents-in-law. However, another friend of mine, isn't so lucky. He doesn't get along with his partner's parents, but the worst part is, it's because they don't want their daughter to marry a non-Japanese man.

[Quail]

No, fuck your request.



I know, I've seen the damage done to Egyptian temples and monuments where either they or later Christians have chiselled away the images and cartouches.

I know it happened in history.

What I'm asking for, simply, is evidence or a source that this happened in Japan. It's not that I don't believe you it's that I'm interested in reading it. I don't understand why you have to be such a defensive prick.



Oh, go and play in the motorway.

It's painfully obvious that the only reason you type all of this irrelevant crap is because it's clearly so difficult for you to source the bullshit you've been spewing.
All of this is unnecessary flaming. This is a verbal warning.

[Sabot Cat]

All of this is unnecessary flaming. This is a verbal warning.

We have rules against flaming? When did this happen?! ._.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Has no one noticed the trollish name of the OP? Is that irony? I smell fish.


Japan is a strange case. On the one hand, Japanese history is filled with taking and incorporating what they want or like from other people's and cultures, and making it "Japanese" in some way, they also have a capitalist system which caters to a world market (in food, tourism and entertainment for example,) and a pervasive attitude in Japanese society that people should get along with others no matter what their racial character is. On the other hand, Japan wants a uniformly "Japanese" society despite these things. They won't be able to have their cake and eat it too in the long run. Japanese birth rates will make the country's economy unstable in the long term, they'll need "non-Japanese" immigration in order to keep their country strong.

There are many reasons for this, and frankly, it appears that a lot of this thread is in fact nothing but dumb stereotypes (some of which have some truth to them, but nevertheless, are dreafully inadequate.)

The language is an important reason for why this becomes very insular (apt term in more than one way). There is, for example, very little direct exposure for Japanese people to foreigners, because knowledge of foreign language is extremely poor. The English education is at times done by illiterate foreigners who can hardly speak the language they are supposed to teach, let alone have the ability to explain in Japanese the intricacies of the language, nor any real pedagogy. The Japanese educational system is very rigid and conservative, and effective learning is seldom stressed, preferring instead constant testing and rote learning. This means that very few people have an organic ability to comprehend English (or for that matter, other languages) outside of those with a specialisation in such subjects.

The result of this is that Japanese culture's exposure to foreign culture (which is very common) is through a filter of commercial interest, rather than any direct exposure. There is a strong and long history of fierce xenophobia, which can be seen also in Korea (both North and South are extremely racist; Japan and South Korea was, in some recent study, some of the most xenophobic and paranoid about immigrant countries in the world; people polled thought their % of population from foreign origin was over 10%, even though in both cases it is roughly 2%, and in the case of Korea, almost half of that 2% are Korean nationals who have migrated back from China, to add insult to injury).

Nationalism is very strong, and it will not get better. The governments for the last 40 years have all gradually turned more and more nationalistic to cover up their own corruptions and total failures to achieve anything whatsoever. Abe with his idiotic economic plan and attempts to make even more nationalist education text-books by removing some already revisionist passages is only the last in a long line of squandering mistress-having business-kissing shits. The growing economic problems internally, the futureless youth who have to whore themselves to get by in a world of precarious temporary employment, the state of course benefits too from the xenophobia. That way the foreign workers (that aren't white), who do menial day labour and sleep in godforsaken barracks hidden in industrial estates, can be kept docile. There is a sizeable population of such slave labour, as it were, some illegal and legal migrants, from other parts of Asia (including Iran) mostly. Compared to the generally good treatment that a white person faces (especially if you are wealthy, then you will find that the roadblocks in your way will be easily overcome), this is some real racist stuff. Sure, someone might tell white pig to go home, but as long as white pig has cash, he can stay. Not so if he isn't rich or white, though.

In many ways the difficulty to get citizenship is somewhat similar to the situation in the United States, where they basically force immigrants to be slave labourers for 15 years before they can even be considered naturalised, unless of course they got the money and own a lot of properties and industries... The world often has a tendency to work like that, don't you think?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The claim that Japanese people who committed suicide were erased from history is bizarre, as there are examples of people killing themselves (Soga no Emishi is the earliest example I can think of, but there were probably earlier examples), in official histories. Many of them, like the Hojo retainers defeated by the new Ashikaga government, were highly praised.

Perhaps someone got confused over the highly taboo nature of any death in the Japanese folk religion? We can only guess.

I don't think anyone here supports Japanese official racism, discrimination of burakumin and so on. At the same time, blaming this on some "Japanese culture", and not the material interest of the Japanese bourgeoisie, is silly. Japanese culture was founded by immigrants, and Korean immigrants in particular held prominent positions in early, Asiatic-despotic Japan. (A good way to make a Japanese nationalist's blood boil is pointing out that the imperial family - one of the several at least - probably had Korean origins.)


The Meiji period started with the restoration of the Empire of Japan, but for our purposes here, it is important because it is the era in which Japan began industrializing and cast off its version of feudalism. Obviously, during this time period, it was looking to the West for inspiration and for technological purposes, and this is what facilitated the Western influence on Japanese culture, which has historically been the exact opposite of what you're describing here.

The transition from the Edo to the Meiji period ("bakumatsu", "end of tent government") was a bit more complex than that. First of all, the emperor Komei, Mutsuhito's father, already wielded quite a bit of power; he wasn't the powerless figurehead of later official mythology. He intervened in a succession crisis of Tokugawa shoguns, for example. Second, there was already quite a bit of Western influence before the end of the shogunate (you can find a lot of pictures of the last shogun Yoshinobu in French uniform, there were schools devoted to teaching Western science and so on). The forces opposing the shogunate, the shishi, were a mixed bunch, from "expel the barbarians" types to modernisers like Takasugi Shinsaku. Very few of them wanted to depose the shogun, although that faction gained in popularity after police actions by the shogunate.

Most importantly, the shogun stepped down and formally transferred power back to the emperor (a political gesture that had no actual impact) well before the end of the "Meiji restoration". The last battles of the war were fought between Chosu and Satsuma (two feudal domains who threw their lot with the shishi) forces on one side, and the official imperial government still led by the former shogun, now as the chairman of a council of feudal lords. In the new Meiji government, the emperor had as much power as he had under the shogun, and this was barely concealed. In fact the only modern Japanese emperor to have significant power was Hirohito, as by that point the old Meiji oligarchy had died, and the parliamentary regime of emperor Taisho was widely considered inadequate for the interests of the Japanese bourgeoisie.

[RevolutionaryThinker]

Does it still tick you off? I hope not.

Nah, I think it was just a knee-jerk reaction. Once I started really thinking about it I wasn't ticked off at all anymore.

[RevolutionaryThinker]

Has no one noticed the trollish name of the OP? Is that irony? I smell fish.

Leave me and my name alone. I don't go around judging people because of their usernames.

The name means something different to me than it does to most people, you see I don't believe in nations, but I am a real patriot because I believe I am bettering humanity, if humanity was a nation then I am a patriot and hence a patriotic thinker. Idk, I was tired when I made the name too!

[RevolutionaryThinker]

There are many reasons for this, and frankly, it appears that a lot of this thread is in fact nothing but dumb stereotypes (some of which have some truth to them, but nevertheless, are dreafully inadequate.)

The language is an important reason for why this becomes very insular (apt term in more than one way). There is, for example, very little direct exposure for Japanese people to foreigners, because knowledge of foreign language is extremely poor. The English education is at times done by illiterate foreigners who can hardly speak the language they are supposed to teach, let alone have the ability to explain in Japanese the intricacies of the language, nor any real pedagogy. The Japanese educational system is very rigid and conservative, and effective learning is seldom stressed, preferring instead constant testing and rote learning. This means that very few people have an organic ability to comprehend English (or for that matter, other languages) outside of those with a specialisation in such subjects.

The result of this is that Japanese culture's exposure to foreign culture (which is very common) is through a filter of commercial interest, rather than any direct exposure. There is a strong and long history of fierce xenophobia, which can be seen also in Korea (both North and South are extremely racist; Japan and South Korea was, in some recent study, some of the most xenophobic and paranoid about immigrant countries in the world; people polled thought their % of population from foreign origin was over 10%, even though in both cases it is roughly 2%, and in the case of Korea, almost half of that 2% are Korean nationals who have migrated back from China, to add insult to injury).

Nationalism is very strong, and it will not get better. The governments for the last 40 years have all gradually turned more and more nationalistic to cover up their own corruptions and total failures to achieve anything whatsoever. Abe with his idiotic economic plan and attempts to make even more nationalist education text-books by removing some already revisionist passages is only the last in a long line of squandering mistress-having business-kissing shits. The growing economic problems internally, the futureless youth who have to whore themselves to get by in a world of precarious temporary employment, the state of course benefits too from the xenophobia. That way the foreign workers (that aren't white), who do menial day labour and sleep in godforsaken barracks hidden in industrial estates, can be kept docile. There is a sizeable population of such slave labour, as it were, some illegal and legal migrants, from other parts of Asia (including Iran) mostly. Compared to the generally good treatment that a white person faces (especially if you are wealthy, then you will find that the roadblocks in your way will be easily overcome), this is some real racist stuff. Sure, someone might tell white pig to go home, but as long as white pig has cash, he can stay. Not so if he isn't rich or white, though.

In many ways the difficulty to get citizenship is somewhat similar to the situation in the United States, where they basically force immigrants to be slave labourers for 15 years before they can even be considered naturalised, unless of course they got the money and own a lot of properties and industries... The world often has a tendency to work like that, don't you think?

I agree 100% with you on that, and I didn't think white people had it bad at all in Japan. I was referring more to how they discriminate against Chinese/Koreans. And also the government never apologized for their war crimes either. And I know how white people are treated in Japan because my uncle lives there, and he doesn't have any problems. And people are always begging him to speak English, it seems the people are curious about the English language, and to me it sounds like he is worshipped there so I know very well white people are treated just fine in Japan.

[RevolutionaryThinker]

The claim that Japanese people who committed suicide were erased from history is bizarre, as there are examples of people killing themselves (Soga no Emishi is the earliest example I can think of, but there were probably earlier examples), in official histories. Many of them, like the Hojo retainers defeated by the new Ashikaga government, were highly praised.

Perhaps someone got confused over the highly taboo nature of any death in the Japanese folk religion? We can only guess.

I don't think anyone here supports Japanese official racism, discrimination of burakumin and so on. At the same time, blaming this on some "Japanese culture", and not the material interest of the Japanese bourgeoisie, is silly. Japanese culture was founded by immigrants, and Korean immigrants in particular held prominent positions in early, Asiatic-despotic Japan. (A good way to make a Japanese nationalist's blood boil is pointing out that the imperial family - one of the several at least - probably had Korean origins.)



The transition from the Edo to the Meiji period ("bakumatsu", "end of tent government") was a bit more complex than that. First of all, the emperor Komei, Mutsuhito's father, already wielded quite a bit of power; he wasn't the powerless figurehead of later official mythology. He intervened in a succession crisis of Tokugawa shoguns, for example. Second, there was already quite a bit of Western influence before the end of the shogunate (you can find a lot of pictures of the last shogun Yoshinobu in French uniform, there were schools devoted to teaching Western science and so on). The forces opposing the shogunate, the shishi, were a mixed bunch, from "expel the barbarians" types to modernisers like Takasugi Shinsaku. Very few of them wanted to depose the shogun, although that faction gained in popularity after police actions by the shogunate.

Most importantly, the shogun stepped down and formally transferred power back to the emperor (a political gesture that had no actual impact) well before the end of the "Meiji restoration". The last battles of the war were fought between Chosu and Satsuma (two feudal domains who threw their lot with the shishi) forces on one side, and the official imperial government still led by the former shogun, now as the chairman of a council of feudal lords. In the new Meiji government, the emperor had as much power as he had under the shogun, and this was barely concealed. In fact the only modern Japanese emperor to have significant power was Hirohito, as by that point the old Meiji oligarchy had died, and the parliamentary regime of emperor Taisho was widely considered inadequate for the interests of the Japanese bourgeoisie.

I agree!! In fact I never said that I think it is because of Japanese culture, I know very well it is the bourgeois there.

[Lord Testicles]

All of this is unnecessary flaming. This is a verbal warning.

Meh, fair enough.

Sometimes you've got to get nasty to stop people dancing around the point all day.


We have rules against flaming? When did this happen?! ._.

As with most of the rules, they are enforced to varying degrees at the admins discretion.

[MarxSchmarx]

There are a lot of misconceptions here about Japan's nationality law, and it's important to distinguish between societal attitudes and government policy.


Anyways as the titles says I am infuriated! And I'll tell you why. So a few days ago I was researching and I found that in Japan you have to actually have 'Japanese blood' to be a citizen of that country, or go through a very hard process called 'assimilation'. I never knew Japan was so obsessed with preserving their 'race'. This made me infuriated, I mean just imagine if you had to have a 'German bloodline' to have citizenship in Germany! People would go nuts! But no one makes a sound if Japan is doing it??? That's what infuriates me. It's racist, and someone needs to change how the system works over there.

It made me super upset when I found out that there are people who are born in Japan but are still not citizens because they don't have 'Japanese blood'. Well what the hell???? The worst part is it seems like people on the left don't really care about this. But I bet they would if a European country acted like this. As red as I am, I do have to point out hypocrisy when I have to.This is absurd. All European countries act exactly like this. In fact Germany's nationality law strongly mirrors Japan's and they have many of the same policy issues. Most of the world outside the western hemisphere follows "ju sanguinis" where citizenship is available as a birthright only to children of citizens. It is Brazil, US, Mexico, etc... that are anomolous in following jus soli, where the land of your birth determines your citizenship (although children of citizens born abroad can be citizens too). I believe until recently Ireland and France were also jus soli as well, but those laws changed as they became wealthy countries.

The naturalization requirement is stringent, as it is in most of the world, including the United States. In practice, people who have lived in Japan for a long time, speak Japanese, hold a job (which virtually all foreigners in Japan who are not spouses of Japanese do) and have no criminal record or the like are almost always granted naturalization if they wish. I have never heard of somebody who meets the above criteria denied naturalization purely on the amorphous "assimilationist" grounds. Few foreigners living in Japan go through the process, but it's quite routine and mundane. Most who do are multigenerational Koreans (see below) or spouses of Japanese nationals, but because Japanese naturalization requires forfeiting one's original nationality, hardly any westerners go through with it. Incidentally, Germany also prohibits naturalized citizens from retaining non-German citizenship. The process in Japan does entail a certain expectation that one 'become Japanese' upon naturalization. One Finn who became naturalized was elected to parliament. But that's true everywhere. A naturalized Australian is expected to 'become Australian'. I don't see what's so crazy/racist about that. And children of naturalized Japanese are Japanese regardless of race. There is a member of the Japanese world cup team whose Dutch parents became Japanese citizens and he has been Japanese his whole life. This isn't to say he had it easy, but as far as the govt is concerned he's just as Japanese as every other citizen.

Understand that although the Japanese government does not promote diversity or multiculturalism the way, say, the Canadian government does, a lot of this is not so much due to racism as in a view of government as supposed to be 'agnostic' about those matters. The state is supposed to be officially 'color-blind' to use a phrase North Americans use, and I think on the whole the bureaucracy, which really runs Japans government, basically is. France has a similar policy, as does most of Latin America.

Where Japan is exceptional is the issue of multigenerational Koreans and Chinese in Japan, although there are parallels in Turks in Germany and Algerians in France. Unlike those groups, most multi-generational Koreans in Japan can become naturalized, but many, not without justification, do not feel they should be treated any worse because of their non-Japanese citizenship. And it's true. There was a history of forced assimilation that many particularly of the older generation deeply resent. And today, As permanent residents they should have all the rights, with the exception of voting, conferred to citizens. And there is a movement in Japan to permit these groups to vote. As the Japanese right is fond of pointing out, in no other country is the right to vote in national elections being considered to be granted to non-citizens. But this is also a civil rights issue that a lot the right in Japan, as well as well-meaning western observers, basically responds to with "just naturalize already". It's a lot more complicated than that.

[RevolutionaryThinker]

There are a lot of misconceptions here about Japan's nationality law, and it's important to distinguish between societal attitudes and government policy.

This is absurd. All European countries act exactly like this. In fact Germany's nationality law strongly mirrors Japan's and they have many of the same policy issues. Most of the world outside the western hemisphere follows "ju sanguinis" where citizenship is available as a birthright only to children of citizens. It is Brazil, US, Mexico, etc... that are anomolous in following jus soli, where the land of your birth determines your citizenship (although children of citizens born abroad can be citizens too). I believe until recently Ireland and France were also jus soli as well, but those laws changed as they became wealthy countries.

The naturalization requirement is stringent, as it is in most of the world, including the United States. In practice, people who have lived in Japan for a long time, speak Japanese, hold a job (which virtually all foreigners in Japan who are not spouses of Japanese do) and have no criminal record or the like are almost always granted naturalization if they wish. I have never heard of somebody who meets the above criteria denied naturalization purely on the amorphous "assimilationist" grounds. Few foreigners living in Japan go through the process, but it's quite routine and mundane. Most who do are multigenerational Koreans (see below) or spouses of Japanese nationals, but because Japanese naturalization requires forfeiting one's original nationality, hardly any westerners go through with it. Incidentally, Germany also prohibits naturalized citizens from retaining non-German citizenship. The process in Japan does entail a certain expectation that one 'become Japanese' upon naturalization. One Finn who became naturalized was elected to parliament. But that's true everywhere. A naturalized Australian is expected to 'become Australian'. I don't see what's so crazy/racist about that. And children of naturalized Japanese are Japanese regardless of race. There is a member of the Japanese world cup team whose Dutch parents became Japanese citizens and he has been Japanese his whole life. This isn't to say he had it easy, but as far as the govt is concerned he's just as Japanese as every other citizen.

Understand that although the Japanese government does not promote diversity or multiculturalism the way, say, the Canadian government does, a lot of this is not so much due to racism as in a view of government as supposed to be 'agnostic' about those matters. The state is supposed to be officially 'color-blind' to use a phrase North Americans use, and I think on the whole the bureaucracy, which really runs Japans government, basically is. France has a similar policy, as does most of Latin America.

Where Japan is exceptional is the issue of multigenerational Koreans and Chinese in Japan, although there are parallels in Turks in Germany and Algerians in France. Unlike those groups, most multi-generational Koreans in Japan can become naturalized, but many, not without justification, do not feel they should be treated any worse because of their non-Japanese citizenship. And it's true. There was a history of forced assimilation that many particularly of the older generation deeply resent. And today, As permanent residents they should have all the rights, with the exception of voting, conferred to citizens. And there is a movement in Japan to permit these groups to vote. As the Japanese right is fond of pointing out, in no other country is the right to vote in national elections being considered to be granted to non-citizens. But this is also a civil rights issue that a lot the right in Japan, as well as well-meaning western observers, basically responds to with "just naturalize already". It's a lot more complicated than that.

Thank you! This really helped me understand better.