Hot Topics | |
---|---|
wagyl wrote:Thank you for your considered answers. I feel that the subtle, hidden nature of the racism is the US illustration is more insidious: the East Asian parent in this relationship is the one who caused trouble which is affecting this child.
havill wrote:chokonen888 wrote:Hong Kong and Macau signed back in the late 90's
TL;DR: very few Hong Kong and Macau citizens, male or female, marry Japanese compared to those from mainland China & Taiwan.
=====
As per "One country, two systems"*, the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare counts the stats for Hong Kong and Macau separately. Q: How many male/female SARs (HK/MO) people married JP in 2009 (latest year I can find on the official stat site)? A: The number is so low** that the MHLW doesn't break the stat out like: they're lumped into the "Other" category.
- the PRC,
- Brazil,
- Korea (KR+KP),
- Phillipines,
- Thailand,
- Brazil,
- Peru,
- the U.S.,
- and the U.K.
International marriage (Japanese+Other/None-of-the-above) in 2009: 4,687.
That means that Hong Kong and Macao are a fraction of that number.
Compare to mainland China: 13,789
and Korea: 5,992.
* Ironically, for political reasons, the MHLW counts Taiwan, or the ROC as I like to call it , as being part of the PRC.
** Congrats, U.K.: you managed to marry enough Japanese that you were deemed statistically relevant enough to break out into another column in 1995, along with the Brazilians, Peruvians, Thais and Filipinos. In 2009 Brits married 423 Japanese; Americans married 1,632 Japanese that year.
wagyl wrote:We can agree that the US is majority white?
This child is not pure white, so the foreign parent is, I'm guessing, East Asian.
The illustration is suggesting that the children who are subject to kidnapping from the US are kidnapped by their East Asian parent. That is, that the evil parents who do the kidnapping are East Asian.
What about the children of, for example, Danish-US International marriages kidnapped by their Danish parent?
Why are the East Asian evil parents represented by this illustration, and the evil Danish parents not?
OK. You have all read that. It seems a little out there, a little extreme. But if you want to believe it is a racist illustration, you can find your peace with the explanation. If you do not want to believe it is a racist illustration, you go away saying "Wagyl is nuts."
Now, read back over this thread.
We can agree that Japan is majority East Asian?
This child is not pure Asian, so the foreign parent is, I'm guessing, Caucasian. Indeed, the parent is illustrated as such.
The illustration is suggesting that the children who are subject to kidnapping from Japan are kidnapped by their Caucasian parent. That is, that the evil parents who do the kidnapping are Caucasian.
What about the children of, for example, Filipino-Japan International marriages kidnapped by their Filipino parent?
Why are the Caucasian evil parents represented by this illustration, and the evil Filipino parents not?
One of these leads to "Wagyl is nuts," the other leads to "Holy softcream shaped shit, [that's racist]."
Please explain why.
(For the record, I would be hard pressed to suggest either is racist, not even enough to go to my keyboard and draft a stern post to a bulletin board. But I will admit that I have pretty dull receptors for detecting racist activity. It must be an absolute minefield to put these illustrations together for these pamphlets, not wanting to offend anybody.
I read an interesting comment about Doctor Debito the other day: I think it was on a site other than this one, but paraphrasing because I didn't pay attention to where it was or how to find it again, it was suggesting that taking up an activist fight in relation to every little slight, be it empty seats next to you on the train and comments on your chopstick prowess to excessive blond big-nosed illustrations, can lead to audience fatigue where people stop paying you attention because so much of it is about stuff which doesn't matter and you become an irrelevance. And then when an important issue does arise your comments are no longer taken seriously. He fights and moans about every little thing, so who knows whether the issue du jour is big or small, the assumption comes to be that it is small and can be ignored. I start to wonder if this particular battle is one of those which should be bypassed, waiting for an issue which really matters. Opinions may vary on the importance of this issue, of course.)
chokonen888 wrote:wagyl wrote:We can agree that the US is majority white?
as far as the US being only a white country, that's a joke, right?
Wage Slave wrote:chokonen888 wrote:Holy softcream shaped shit...that's pretty fucking bad.
Well it doesn't, in my opinion, square very well with this view from 6810 the other day:
"Though some people on this board may come from nations where anti-discrimination laws and related penalties are more explcitly coded and/or tested, it is my (uninformed) assumption that many of these people have yet to actively utilise these social and legal frameworks in thier "home countries". It is the same in Japan. This type of framework is slowly being encoded within specific cultural conditions - it's early days and early, high profile, over-represented failures represent a moment in time. Repeated testing is required and given the small proportion of the overall population, their linguistic ability etc - this testing is going to take a while. Doesn't necessarily = instant fail though."
6810 wrote:"Hey, the locals, who are essentially still fairly parochial and new to this whole "international" game .....
Samurai_Jerk wrote:chokonen888 wrote:wagyl wrote:We can agree that the US is majority white?
as far as the US being only a white country, that's a joke, right?
Did you not read what you quoted?
The 2010 United States Census reported that **my hometown** had a population of 55,544. The population density was 3,731.5 people per square mile (1,440.8/km²). The racial makeup of **my hometown** was: 29,144 (52.5%) Asian; 18,434 (33.2%) White (21.3% Non-Hispanic White), 2,288 (4.1%) African American; 178 (0.3%) Native American; 106 (0.2%) Pacific Islander; 3,237 (5.8%) from other races; and 2,157 (3.9%) from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 11,138 persons (20.1%).
chokonen888 wrote:it's really nothing more than a depiction of a suffering child.
wagyl wrote:chokonen888 wrote:it's really nothing more than a depiction of a suffering child.
The kid looks pretty damn happy to me, actually. I suppose there are few stock photos for "distressed ethnic child."
kurogane wrote:Yes. A well researched, badly executed piece: trenchant expert commentary oversauced by the usual sanctimonious condescension about a subject they don't understand and a difference they can't fathom (I assume the latter were the bits you liked ). But at least somebody's battng 500.
Wage Slave wrote:
She's wrong about being married and having different names though. It's not a problem in the slightest.
Hijinx wrote:Wage Slave wrote:
She's wrong about being married and having different names though. It's not a problem in the slightest.
For Japanese married to Japanese?
Hijinx wrote:For Japanese married to Japanese?
Doctor Stop wrote:Remember that her article is about international child abduction.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 76 guests