posted
Excluded from social norms in a consistent way? As far as I can tell that's not so in the US, in every place I've been in the US for any moderate length of time I've seen group of friends that crossed racial, religious, and sexual orientation boundaries.
Its on a whole other level, a worse level, in Japan: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10066 . For instance, over ninety percent of nationalized Koreans in Japan use Japanese names to hide their ethnicity because the discrimination is so bad.
And I'm talking about Europe's class problems now, not the historical ones (though historical class problems persist in abominable ways, too -- take a look at the roma). Laws being considered (and passed!) around Europe to prevent Muslims from wearing traditional clothing in part to prevent them from seeming different speaks quite well to classist attitudes in Europe.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see that as religious, not class discrimination.
I just want to make sure I'm reading this right. You all don't think America has class or class problems, is that correct?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I think our class problems are less than in many other countries, not that they're nonexistent.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Australia is one of many exceptions to Will's generalisation.
Do you deny that other countries have worse class issues than the U.S.?
He didn't say "all others." He said others.
No, I don't deny that. But when someone says "Other countries have much more severe class problems than we do" without any qualifying statement or caveat, I assume it means 'all others'. If I've misunderstood Will he can correct me, but the fact that he hasn't argued against my premise suggests that he really did mean the rest of the world had worse class problems.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
Excluded from social norms in a consistent way? As far as I can tell that's not so in the US, in every place I've been in the US for any moderate length of time I've seen group of friends that crossed racial, religious, and sexual orientation boundaries.
I could say the exact same about Australia, and I personally have friends from a variety of ethnic backgrounds and religious faiths.
As for Japan, the way in which the Ainu or Burakumin or Korean immigrants are ostracised or compelled to live in poor regions is not dissimilar to the way racial minorities in the US are concentrated in poor neighbourhoods (see page 12 of this report). I can see a Muslim living in Texas suffering similar or worse treatment than a Korean immigrant would in Tokyo, or even a more provincial city in Japan. While living there (though I admit my situation was unique, being in an International school) I had friends who were Korean, even one who was North Korean. I concede that they were financially better off than most Korean immigrants in Japan would be, but some did not even learn to speak Japanese, and didn't suffer any discrimination as far as I knew.
From the very article that you linked:
quote:It is also essential to recognize that discrimination is not a problem only in Japan, but one that plagues all nations in various forms. When we in our movement meet people abroad, some of them tell us triumphantly about "the discrimination you have in Japan against Koreans and Burakumin." They need to be asked what they are doing about discrimination in their own countries. In the United States, for example, there is discrimination against blacks, Latinos, and people of Arab descent. I want to ask Americans what they are doing as individuals to deal with this problem. If they aren't doing anything, we have no common ground for discussion. If, on the other hand, they are doing something, then we can see how our efforts differ, and discuss them. For journalists and others to speak about discrimination against Koreans in Japan and blacks in America only to show off their knowledge does nothing to solve the problem.
As for Japan's relations with the countries whose people that have been the object of discrimination, things were fine between Japan and South Korea as long as Japan was considered "groovy" in South Korea during the " Korea wave" here and the " Japan boom" there. But as soon as South Korea mentions the Yasukuni problem, trouble starts. Similarly, relations with China were fine as long as people there were talking about marvelous Toyotas and economic cooperation between the two nations. But as soon as Beijing mentions the history of aggression, anti-Chinese sentiment spreads in Japan. Something similar happens in America when the Palestinian issue is raised. Such tendencies must be resisted wherever in the world they occur.
The treatment of Muslims in the US is getting worse, while the treatment of indigenous minorities in Japan is (very slowly) improving.
The last thing I want to do is vilify America. I can not think of a country that was founded on nobler principles. But I'm correcting a generalisation which I think was chauvinistic and false.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, I don't deny that. But when someone says "Other countries have much more severe class problems than we do" without any qualifying statement or caveat, I assume it means 'all others'.
That's a bad assumption based on how I've seen people use that phrasing before.
If you asked me, "Why did you park in the fire lane" and I said "others do it for longer than I did," would you assume I meant everyone else in the whole world did it longer than I had done it?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still think that in the context it was used, it tends to mean 'all others'. Wouldn't Will have said "I meant 'most' other countries" as soon as I started arguing about it and providing counter-examples if that was not the case?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wouldn't Will have said "I meant 'most' other countries" as soon as I started arguing about it and providing counter-examples if that was not the case?
Not necessarily, because it's not obvious to me that "That [generalization] is [bad], because it's blatantly incorrect" is based on an implicit "all" being in Will's original generalization.
Will's response certainly didn't take the tack of "all." He provided a specific set of examples.
Just as you assumed "all" was in there, Will might be assuming you were challenging the version without the "all."
What's clear to me is that your posts are not truly addressing each other - each has some assumption that the other does not. This one explains the conversation to me.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But in the post after that I start giving counter-examples, and it was fugu rather than Will that conceded there are exceptions.
In any case, Will can still correct me on that point, and I think my position on the issue is now fairly clear.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
