English Teacher Warns Of Racism in Japan

[succubusqueen]

[Adhesive]

I have a sneaking suspicion that some of you people and those who sat by and justified the treatment of Chinese immigrants to the U.S. in the mid 1800's are cut from the same cloth.

You can always make the argument that a nation, regardless of how "open" to heterogeneity it originally was, should be allowed to discriminate against immigrants if you fall back on the "it's-just-their-culture" argument. Take the U.S. for example; if you make the argument that the original culture of the U.S. was rooted in colonial racism that had always viewed Asian cultures as inferior, then at which point does discrimination against Asian immigrants become contemptible?

I fail to see the distinction between Japan and any other modern country, pre-civil-rights-era, that Pachipro is setting forth. I think it had something to do with colonialism? I may be mistaken; I gather that from the Muslim reference. But if that is indeed the argument, then what about Japan's colonization of Korea, China, and Taiwan. Is Japan not now obligated to accept immigrants from those places into the fold and protect them from discrimination?

I think we all are falling for the "Japan is number one unique special country in world" mantra. When any modern country invites immigrants to fill jobs and to stimulate their own economy they should be expected to treat those immigrants as more than sub-human. It doesn't matter how old the tradition of blatant discrimination is; Japan also had a tradition of allowing child pornography, but that doesn't mean that anyone who spoke out against it was being a "rude and obnoxious guest." Do these values stem from our own cultural-bias? Sure. But it's not so black and white; pressuring Japanese to wear shoes in their homes and pressuring them to ban child pornography are quite different things, just as pressuring them to enforce anti-discrimination laws is a far cry from arbitrarily forcing western-customs down their throats. Japan may not view themselves as part of the "New world order", as Pachipro suggests, but the fact of the matter is that they are part of the "new world order" and should be expected to behave as such. I think pressure from outside and within should be applauded, and at the very least, free from criticisim and discouragement from other foreigners.

[Samurai_Jerk]

[quote="Adhesive"]I have a sneaking suspicion that some of you people and those who sat by and justified the treatment of Chinese immigrants to the U.S. in the mid 1800's are cut from the same cloth.

You can always make the argument that a nation, regardless of how "open" to heterogeneity it originally was, should be allowed to discriminate against immigrants if you fall back on the "it's-just-their-culture" argument. Take the U.S. for example]


Great post, Adhesive. Pachipro was way off the mark. The fact is the majority of immigrants in any country are there by choice. That doesn't mean they shouldn't expect to be treated well or to be given open access to housing. If it's OK for people in Japan to discriminate then it's OK for people anywhere to discriminate.

[Mulboyne]

[Takechanpoo]

My real name is Jamal Malcolm Shabbaz Washington.

this name sounds like Arabian(especially Iranian) rather than black to not only me but most japanese maybe.
especially Jamal and Shabbaz sounds like arabian.
i think black's name most japanese imagining is jackson, jonson, jordan, etc.

[CrankyBastard]

this name sounds like Arabian(especially Iranian) rather than black to not only me but most japanese maybe.
especially Jamal and Shabbaz sounds like arabian.
i think black's name most japanese imagining is jackson, jonson, jordan, etc.

Takechanpoo, I used to think you were a sock puppet, then an asshole.
Recently, I just feel sorry for you.

[Takechanpoo]

Takechanpoo, I used to think you were a sock puppet, then an asshole.
Recently, I just feel sorry for you.

i just said common opinion(maybe) in japan.

[CrankyBastard]

i just said common opinion(maybe) in japan.

'Kay............Samurai_Jerk, American Oyaji, AssKissinger and the other posters were having a joke, a rather good one, too. I don't have the time to explain it to you.
Perhaps, if you haven't pissed off everyone here, someone with enough patience will be kind enough to help you understand.

[sublight]

Pachipro, you overlook the fact that Japan, despite being an island geographically, is hardly living in isolation from the world economically, socially, militarily or culturally. Any nation that wishes to be part of the international community is going to have to open up and learn to accept that not everyone does things the way they do. It works both ways, and Japan does not get a pass for being 'unique'.

"Their house, their rules"? Well, in their desire to become part of the international community, the Japanese government has signed treaties pledging to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion or sex, and the courts here have ruled that these treaties have the weight of law within Japan. So the foreigners here demanding equal treatment are not trying to change Japan to suit them, they are insisting that Japan play by the rules it has already agreed to. "No foreigners" signs are not Japanese culture, they are a violation of the nation's own laws.

Just to beat a few more notes from this drum,

Are they wrong? I think not because it is their land and their house/apartment, store, bar, etc,

I think so, because it's against their law.

and who is to tell them who they should rent to and who they can't or should allow in?

Japanese law, that's who.

[Adhesive]

[ttjereth]

I think so, because it's against their law.

Japanese law, that's who.

Not to disagree with the disagreement of Pachiro's post, but I was under the impression there were no domestic Japanese laws which specifically make discrimination based on race illegal?

[sublight]

There are none that have been specifically written by the Japanese government, but the courts ruled in 1998 that by signing non-discrimination treaties, the rules within those treaties are now part of Japanese law.

[omae mona]

A number of posters here are confusing race with citizenship and immigration status. Arudou Debito, a caucasian Japanese citizen, has a lot of valid reasons to complain when he's discriminated against. As Pachipro points out, it's a violation of treaty and Japanese law.

But that's not what we're talking about. None of us (as far as I know) are Japanese citizens. I believe there are plenty of cases where it is perfectly legal (under treaty AND domestic law) to discriminate based on citizenship status (but not race). In fact, this happens in the U.S. too. The HUD website explains part of the Fair Housing Act:

Screening and Rental Procedures

It is unlawful to screen housing applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or familial status. In the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, landlords and property managers have inquired about the legality of screening housing applicants on the basis of their citizenship status. The Act does not prohibit discrimination based solely on a person's citizenship status. Accordingly, asking housing applicants to provide documentation of their citizenship or immigration status during the screening process would not violate the Fair Housing Act. In fact, such measures have been in place for a number of years in screening applicants for federally-assisted housing.

So in the U.S., you can't refuse to rent to somebody because of their skin color if they are a U.S. citizen. But if they are not a U.S. citizen, and you uniformly apply the rule "no non-citizens", regardless of race, it appears to be perfectly legal.

This is equivalent to what's happening in Japan to the teacher who wrote the article. When he goes to the trouble of applying for and receiving citizenship like Debito, and if he still gets turned away by landlords because of his skin color, he will have my sympathy.

[Takechanpoo]

Gaijin ranking in Japan
1.anglo-saxon white and north european white
2.south european white
3.east european white
4.kimchi (besically mongoloid foreigner dont be counted as gaijin though)
5.north american black(african black pretending north american black)
6.south american white
7.arabian and hindustan
8.chinese and other asian
etc....

[Adhesive]

A number of posters here are confusing race with citizenship and immigration status. Arudou Debito, a caucasian Japanese citizen, has a lot of valid reasons to complain when he's discriminated against. As Pachipro points out, it's a violation of treaty and Japanese law.

But that's not what we're talking about. None of us (as far as I know) are Japanese citizens. I believe there are plenty of cases where it is perfectly legal (under treaty AND domestic law) to discriminate based on citizenship status (but not race). In fact, this happens in the U.S. too. The HUD website explains part of the Fair Housing Act:

So in the U.S., you can't refuse to rent to somebody because of their skin color if they are a U.S. citizen. But if they are not a U.S. citizen, and you uniformly apply the rule "no non-citizens", regardless of race, it appears to be perfectly legal.

This is equivalent to what's happening in Japan to the teacher who wrote the article. When he goes to the trouble of applying for and receiving citizenship like Debito, and if he still gets turned away by landlords because of his skin color, he will have my sympathy.

Interesting, I always thought the "national originl" language in the Fair Housing Act would prevent this. I'm still not so sure they can discriminate among people of different citizenships, only that they can ask what a person's immigration status is; for example, if they are on a student visa that will expire before their lease term.

[omae mona]

[quote="Adhesive"]Interesting, I always thought the "national origin" language in the Fair Housing Act would prevent this. I'm still not so sure they can discriminate among people of different citizenships, only that they can ask what a person's immigration status is]

I'm no lawyer, but I bet they can't discriminate among people of different citizenships (e.g. France versus Nicaragua). They way I read it, though, is they CAN discriminate between citizen and non-citizen so long as the rule is uniformly applied to all non-citizens.

Again, it's not that I think this behavior is nice in Japan or in the U.S. But I don't think it's violating treaties or laws.

[Adhesive]

I'm no lawyer, but I bet they can't discriminate among people of different citizenships (e.g. France versus Nicaragua). They way I read it, though, is they CAN discriminate between citizen and non-citizen so long as the rule is uniformly applied to all non-citizens.

Again, it's not that I think this behavior is nice in Japan or in the U.S. But I don't think it's violating treaties or laws.

Hmm, I really think that HUD is saying a landlord can inquire about a person's legal status (as long as they inquire non-discriminatly) only in order to "verify citizenship or eligible immigration status," and not in order to discriminate against non-citizens. For example, the Landlord can ask any foreigner (meaning every applicant) to prove eligible immigration status, but once eligibility is demonstrated, via a resident green card, student visa, citizenship, etc., a Landlord cannot then refuse to rent. This makes sense as the 9/11 highjackers were here on student visas that had expired, and this would allow landlords to check on their eligibility and ultimately refuse rental.

But, I haven't found anything confirming this, so my theory may be completely wrong. I know it's not that relevant to the thread, but I find it really disturbing that a LL may potentially refuse rental to a non-citizen. I'll ask my property professor about it; he writes the property questions for one of the state bar exams, so he had better know.

[omae mona]

[quote="Adhesive"]Hmm, I really think that HUD is saying a landlord can inquire about a person's legal status (as long as they inquire non-discriminatly) only in order to "verify citizenship or eligible immigration status," and not in order to discriminate against non-citizens. For example, the Landlord can ask any foreigner (meaning every applicant) to prove eligible immigration status, but once eligibility is demonstrated, via a resident green card, student visa, citizenship, etc., a Landlord cannot then refuse to rent. This makes sense as the 9/11 highjackers were here on student visas that had expired, and this would allow landlords to check on their eligibility and ultimately refuse rental.

But, I haven't found anything confirming this, so my theory may be completely wrong. I know it's not that relevant to the thread, but I find it really disturbing that a LL may potentially refuse rental to a non-citizen. I'll ask my property professor about it]
Please let us know! For what it's worth, I also found this extensive section about housing access for people with limited language ability. It explains that the HUD guidance on thsi matter applies to both citizens and non-citizens, but due to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, not because of the Fair Housing Act. Title VI only applies to federally subsidized services, not to regular rentals from private landlords.

[Pachipro]

Pachipro, thanks for taking the time to give us your thoughts. One thing struck me in what you wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pachipro
In Brussels, for example, there are signs on some establishments refusing entry to Japanese only, because many of them are unruly.

Where on earth are these signs?

This was posted on another site by a former member of FG who is presently living there. You can find the link here

Whether they have 'signs" per say or not I do not know, but he does specifically say that Japanese are forbidden entry to some establishments and he should know.

[Pachipro]

Adhesive, Mulboyne, Samurai Jerk, and others who have offered similar opinions against my argument, while I do not disagree with what you say, the fact remains that Japan is discriminatory in many ways towards foreigners and has been since I first set foot in the country 33 years ago. The same arguments you raise have been raised since then and nothing, nothing has been done to remedy the situation.

I've even seen roundtable discussions on TV back in the late 70's early 80's concerning the discriminatory practices against foreigners in the area of housing, work, refusal of entry to certain establishments, etc., with a panel of foreign "talento" (mostly white), Koreans and Chinese born in Japan along with Japanese representatives from the government and TV tarento

The Japanese panelists just nodded their head, said, "Ahh soo desuka", "naruhodo", "warui desu neh", etc. and still nothing changed.

As I said, although we all agree they are wrong and should change, the fact remains that they will NOT change unless foreigners, as well as native born Koreans and Chinese, protest in significant numbers just as blacks did in the US and the illegal Mexicans are doing now. Then, and only then, will things change for foreigners in Japan.

To constantly bitch about it, as Captain Obvious did in the original link, is a lesson in futlity and an argument I have heard over and over and over again. It seems like every other day there is another article on racism in Japan which probably is of more interest to the newbies than FG's.

While I may not agree with Debito and his way of combating discrimination in Japan, he may do better if he organizes an official protest in downtown Tokyo that gets media attention. But then again, I wonder how many apathetic foreigners living and working in Japan will show up? My guess, based on the past 30+ years, is not many. However, if I were living there when, and if he, or someone else does organize one, I'd be there.

Until then I'll just accept the fact that it does exist and that I may be turned down for housing or refused entry to certain establishments because that's the way it is for the present. Do I like it when it happens? No I do not. But I do know I will eventually find that house or mansion I want to rent and there are thousands of similar establishments that will let me in. Still, I understand why it happens and accept it in the very rare cases that I do come/came across it when I was living there and when I visit on yearly basis. Discrimination really does seem non-existant as one learns the language and customs. It only seems to stand out and irritate those who never learn the language or customs/culture, Debito not included.

And even though it still exists, I still plan on retiring there permanently in a few years where it will probably still remain the same. To me it's minor as the positives still outweigh the negatives.

Anyway good points raised by all!

[amdg]

Anyone interested in the question of inequality for foreigners among university teachers in Japan should read the PALE archives:

http://www.debito.org/PALE/

[omae mona]

Anyone interested in the question of inequality for foreigners among university teachers in Japan should read the PALE archives:

http://www.debito.org/PALE/

As usual with stuff on Debito's site, I think the material there is legitimate and relevant (again, a contrast to the ranting from the teacher qutoed in the original post).

When there are cases of illegal and unjust discrimination like this in Japan, I'm not sure whether it's more prevalent than in other countries. In fact, I couldn't even guess how to assess that. But one thing is pretty clear to me and bothers me a lot: most of the time in Japan, even when there is clearly illegal discrimination, there is no recourse for the victim. Sadly, a lot of the cases come down to government, judges, or prosecutors acknowledging that the law was broken, and then saying they can't or won't do anything about it.