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.

"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 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 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-conf...ide/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.