Fixed that 2014 MOFA poster that's been causing a stir

[Hijinx]

[BigInJapan]

Here is an English version of the original poster for reference (complete with blonde foreign dads with their Japanese mothers left behind in Japan). (Original J pamphlet and description/interpretation on debito's blog)

Hague-flyer.jpg

[matsuki]

Holy softcream shaped shit...that's pretty fucking bad.

I was just talking with someone (Japanese who has lived abroad) the other day and they were bitching about how the image of "kokusai kekkon" here is white foreigner and Japanese flemurs, when the reality of it is 97% (or so?) of them are J-dudes and SE Asia lemurs. This is taking that fucked mentality a step further, FG white dads beating, kidnapping, and keeping the mother away from the haafu kids?? I'm guessing the "H" on the kids shirt stands for "HAGUE" but TIJ and by the tone of the rest of the cover, I wouldn't be surprised if this with designed by some racist fuck, trying to send a "H with a gaijin and look forward to parenthood like this!" message.

[edit] Just read the inside of the pamphlet...wow....just wow. It's literally filled with (false) and pointless stereotypes. What is with all the reinforcement of "Us vs. Hakujin" complex lately? The other day I happened upon the Disney Channel while working on my PC...but it wasn't exactly Disney that came on. (Disney broadcasting rights here not owned/operated by disney?) The theme of the show was Japanese baseball players one-upping racist Americans who were making all kinds of comments like "your body isn't made for sports like ours!" WTF? All they were missing was yellow monkey and yellow cab references but maybe I just missed that part? (All I saw was the preview before flipping it off)

[Wage Slave]

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."

[matsuki]

I mean, almost the entire booklet is focused on "the 3%" white male/Japanese female marriages. The one part that isn't is a J-d00d with a French wife? WTF? Kinda crazy that they'd ignore the other 97% scenario but from what I've heard from both men and women here, the image of those 97% J-men is "dirtly old loser men who can't get a Japanese wife so they take a Philippina or Chinese bride from a snack or hostess club." (Which I guess would be embarrassing for the MOFA to illustrate??) I guess it's not reasonable to think any of those 97% J-dudes just simply met their wife when travelling/working abroad?

[Wage Slave]

I think what's really depressing about this sort of thing - and it is big picture not an isolated incident - is that the impression it gives of a complete lack of good faith. You look at something like this and you just feel there is no genuine understanding or desire for improvement at all.

Perhaps that's unfair, but that's how it feels.

[wagyl]

but from what I've heard from both men and women here, the image of those 97% J-men is "dirtly old loser men who can't get a Japanese wife so they take a Philippina or Chinese bride from a snack or hostess club." (Which I guess would be embarrassing for the MOFA to illustrate??) I guess it's not reasonable to think any of those 97% J-dudes just simply met their wife when travelling/working abroad?

To be fair, of all the Japanese male/South East or East Asian female other than devilish hidden sankokujin couples I am aware of, almost all are "she used to work at a Snack I went to" or mail order. I do remember one where they met when both were studying English overseas. Not to say that the other scenario is impossible, but I think it might be rare.

[Greji]

but from what I've heard from both men and women here, the image of those 97% J-men is "dirtly old loser men who can't get a Japanese wife so they take a Philippina or Chinese bride from a snack or hostess club." (Which I guess would be embarrassing for the MOFA to illustrate??) I guess it's not reasonable to think any of those 97% J-dudes just simply met their wife when travelling/working abroad?

To be fair, of all the Japanese male/South East or East Asian female other than devilish hidden sankokujin couples I am aware of, almost all are "she used to work at a Snack I went to" or mail order. I do remember one where they met when both were studying English overseas. Not to say that the other scenario is impossible, but I think it might be rare.

[matsuki]

Same here (though it's usually the mixed daughter tellin me the story) but yeah, stats on that aren't likely to come out any time soon.

Hey Hijinx, care to use your photoshop skills for a reality based version of that PDF?

[IparryU]

pretty fucked...

[havill]

I mean, almost the entire booklet is focused on "the 3%" white male/Japanese female marriages. The one part that isn't is a J-d00d with a French wife? WTF? Kinda crazy that they'd ignore the other 97% scenario but from what I've heard from both men and women here, the image of those 97% J-men is "dirtly old loser men who can't get a Japanese wife so they take a Philippina or Chinese bride from a snack or hostess club." (Which I guess would be embarrassing for the MOFA to illustrate??) I guess it's not reasonable to think any of those 97% J-dudes just simply met their wife when travelling/working abroad?

Perhaps the reason they're not focusing on the statistical majority makeup of international marriages in Japan is because the majority of those people have nationalities whose country has not signed on to the Hague C on child abduction.

Talking to these people about their options with Hague is a little moot if they don't have that legal option.

[wagyl]

Perhaps the reason they're not focusing on the statistical majority makeup of international marriages in Japan is because the majority of those people have nationalities whose country has not signed on to the Hague C on child abduction.

Talking to these people about their options with Hague is a little moot if they don't have that legal option.

Great! A list of signatories to the Hague Convention is a list of places where not to take that father and son holiday!

[kurogane]

What is with all the reinforcement of "Us vs. Hakujin" complex lately?

Yeah, I had a great visit, but even allowing for the 2 Years Out & Rusty effect, the level of defensive offense really struck me.　I couldn't believe the number of times I was asked pointedly abusive questions in a seemingly friendly tone (or is that maybe a Tokyo thing?). They are really back on the You Call Us Yellow Monkey horsey. I do disagree with Wage Slave's reply to this quote of yours. It's not so much that there's no progress as that there's serious and obviously strategic regression. That crap is way worse than anything that passed as offensive BS under Koizumi, etc.

That pamphlet would bring down an absolute shiitestorm in any other first world country. Freaky assed paranoid shiite, that. Boo.

[matsuki]

I mean, almost the entire booklet is focused on "the 3%" white male/Japanese female marriages. The one part that isn't is a J-d00d with a French wife? WTF? Kinda crazy that they'd ignore the other 97% scenario but from what I've heard from both men and women here, the image of those 97% J-men is "dirtly old loser men who can't get a Japanese wife so they take a Philippina or Chinese bride from a snack or hostess club." (Which I guess would be embarrassing for the MOFA to illustrate??) I guess it's not reasonable to think any of those 97% J-dudes just simply met their wife when travelling/working abroad?

Perhaps the reason they're not focusing on the statistical majority makeup of international marriages in Japan is because the majority of those people have nationalities whose country has not signed on to the Hague C on child abduction.

Talking to these people about their options with Hague is a little moot if they don't have that legal option.

Hong Kong and Macau signed back in the late 90's but fair enough and by far the only reasonable response...the next obvious question becomes "why are all the situations in the pamphlet situations where FG have whisked away the children abroad?" You'd think it would be a good proactive message to show the opposite...

[matsuki]

What is with all the reinforcement of "Us vs. Hakujin" complex lately?

Yeah, I had a great visit, but even allowing for the 2 Years Out & Rusty effect, the level of defensive offense really struck me.　I couldn't believe the number of times I was asked pointedly abusive questions in a seemingly friendly tone (or is that maybe a Tokyo thing?). They are really back on the You Call Us Yellow Monkey horsey. I do disagree with Wage Slave's reply to this quote of yours. It's not so much that there's no progress as that there's serious and obviously strategic regression. That crap is way worse than anything that passed as offensive BS under Koizumi, etc.

That pamphlet would bring down an absolute shiitestorm in any other first world country. Freaky assed paranoid shiite, that. Boo.

I mean, you can't stop the entrenched old codgers from continuing to push outdated/false racist mindset but on the fucking Disney channel? WTF?

[wagyl]

Fucking racist illustration!

From the 2010 U.S. Report on Compliance with the Hague Abduction Convention, according to Wikipedia. I can't be bothered following up dead links to find the original.
Bigger: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conv ... ver%29.jpg

[matsuki]

Fucking racist illustration!

How so?

[Wage Slave]

Fucking racist illustration!

How so?

I'm as baffled as you are. What's wrong with that?

[wagyl]

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.)

[Wage Slave]

You been on the piss today Wagyl?

[wagyl]

Wish I had. Not too late to start now, I suppose

[havill]

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

• the PRC,
• Brazil,
• Korea (KR+KP),
• Phillipines,
• Thailand,
• Brazil,
• Peru,
• the U.S.,
• and the U.K.

: they're lumped into the "Other" category.

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]

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.

Further, both HK and Macau were signed into the treaty by their then colonial masters, UK and Portugal. Not at the same time as their colonial masters, mind you. No, both of them long after their colonial masters signed, and just before the colonies reverted to Chinese control. Either it was a gift to those families which would split with the change in regime, or it was a way to force things so that it was out of China's control, but it is not either of those colonial masters' finest hours.

[IparryU]

Wagyl is nuts.

Nothing wrong with being a looney toon. We all are like that down in the wabbit hole.

[wagyl]

Thanks for the support, IPU. Loons Anonymous (or at least pseudonymous)

Still nobody offers an explanation as to why one illustration is shout to the hills racist, and the other is "how can that be racist." It is a serious (and stone cold sober) question. What are the differences between them? Where is the line drawn? My challenge to you is, find the flaw, if one exists, in my two mirroring descriptions as to why the illustrations are racist.

I'm hoping that the answer is not "because the target looks like me."

[Yokohammer]

Still nobody offers an explanation as to why one illustration is shout to the hills racist, and the other is "how can that be racist." It is a serious (and stone cold sober) question. What are the differences between them? Where is the line drawn? My challenge to you is, find the flaw, if one exists, in my two mirroring descriptions as to why the illustrations are racist.

I'm hoping that the answer is not "because the target looks like me."

The difference is that the illustration you posted depicts only a child, whereas the MOFA version also shows the evil perpetrators, who are clearly westerners, and suffering mothers, who are clearly Japanese.

The MOFA poster depicts westerners as evil, multiple times.
One of those westerners is apparently in the process of beating his half-Japanese child.
It also depicts a crying half-Japanese child, the one being restrained against her will by the violent western father, with a thought bubble indicating that she's longing to be with her mother in Japan.
It depicts distressed mothers who are obviously Japanese multiple times.
Look again ... the image is rich with not-so-subtle innuendo that only points in one direction.

I'm kinda surprised you had to ask.

If you don't like the term "racist" perhaps we can call it "one-sided in the extreme"? "Abundantly biased"?
Whatever, it is propaganda rather than a realistically balanced representation.
I can't help but notice a generous amount of racial and gender bias.
It is therefore, in my personal opinion, fucked.

[kurogane]

Yup. Well put Yokohammer.

The one Wagyl posted has problems of representative-ibility-ness (as he noted), but that MOFA one is wartime level caricature.

Funny how representations of biracial chilluns tend to focus so heavily on East Asian-White mixes. Most biracial/bicultural (mixed nationality) Japanese are invisible, and most North American biracials are not half East Asian outside of Vancouver and maybe Hawaii and Seattle, as far as I know.

[wagyl]

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.

It is actually worth reading the whole of the pamphlet before getting too angry.
http://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000034153.pdf
I just did, in view of the responses here. I think it is surprisingly balanced. Only 12 pages. It also explains what they are trying to say with some of the WTF cover illustrations nobody mentioned like the top left "fear of being surrounded by people who don't look like you."

As for Choko's inventive "H with a bignose and you'll get an adorable kid whose only career path is show biz and a hell of a lot of grief from the sperm donor," I initially thought it might be something awful like "Half" but it turns out to be "Hajime."

[Yokohammer]

Part of the problem is that people do judge books by their covers (which is why there's a maxim warning 'em not to).

No matter how balanced the content, it is going to gain considerable spin from that cover. In fact, the more neutral the content, the easier it is to apply effective spin. That's because a biased cover plus biased content would pretty much trash the piece's credibility right from the git-go. Credible content with an almost subliminal nudge from context is much more effective.

And about that "fear of being surrounded by people who don't look like you" cameo ... visually it's "a bunch of western people glaring threateningly at a poor Japanese woman," isn't it. Spin? Oh hell yeah.

[Wage Slave]

"fear of being surrounded by people who don't look like you."

Right. And that doesn't exist in Japan eh? Bullying on the basis that someone looks a bit different is unheard of.

The treaty exists because we want to place the best interests of the child paramount. Japan finally agreeing to sign up indicates that finally the Japanese government is prepared to accept that principle even if it means that in some cases the Japanese parent may not get exclusive unchallengeable custody by simply getting the child to Japan.

If that same government is going to produce an information leaflet and poster don't you think it should attempt to explain the impact and rationale of the treaty in a balanced and non prejudicial way. Think for a moment about the original meaning of the word prejudiced as in - judged in advance without examination of the facts or consideration of fairness, and then have another look at this material.

As I said earlier - the thing about this leaflet/poster that I really deplore is the egregious display of a lack of good faith. It begs the question whether any statements, protestations or even apologies from the apparatus of government are made with any sincerity. People acting and speaking in good faith is utterly essential to any healthy relationship - in my world anyway.