Talk:Racism in Japan/Archive 1

"Political Correctness"

I strongly propose that this paragraph is removed, seeing as non of the issues discussed in it are directly related to "political correctness" (which in itself is a quite controversial term). For the time being, I'm moving this information to other more appropriate parts of the article. --85.227.135.142 (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Old discussions

Honestly, different people have different experiences. I've heard stories about racism against Japanese/Filipino relationships and Eurasian students in Japan (called "mongrels" or whatever); on the other hand, I've heard Japan is a more tolerant country than, say, Korea.

Also, did Beat Kitano really make that comment about Japanese women being "whores" for dating non-Japanese? If so, then he can go to hell, and I'm sure not watching any of his movies again.

Nanshu, you are obviously Japanese, and seriously uninformed about the realities of your country. Objectively, Japan has many pluses, but also many minuses. The plus & minus balance shifts depending on what color foreigner you are.

Racism is racism, sexism is sexism, and so on. Japanese racism is the SAME ugly beast found throughout the world, and what the hell is so unique about Japan anyway?

Similar to the way "Jew" means the race & the religion, "Japanese" means the race, the language and the nationality - to you. The United Nations recently condemned Japan as having intense institutional discrimination.

I have been told by Japanese people (when I lived in Japan) that there is no racism in Japan. But wishing it does not make it true. I was turned away from restaurants (in Tokyo, 1992) my girlfriend was called a whore on the train (because she was with me, a foreigner). In fact, when Beat Takeshi said on national tv "Japanese women who date foreigners are whores, and they date foreigners because they cannot get a Japanese man" it did affect my daily life.

Most of the 'crimes by foreigners' are VISA violations. The Japanese government does not separate the types of crimes in order to make it look like foreigners commit lots of crimes. Ask any Japanese about the first AIDS case in Japan, nad they will probably tell you it was a homosexual foreigner. In fact, 3 months earlier, a Japanese salary-man returned from a posting in Thailand, where he contracted AIDS, but the Japanese government chose to wait for a foreign case to grab media attention first.

I would like to see more facts in these articles.

This article has a lot of problems. First of all, the stuff is NOT racism because it has nothing to do with race as 211.5.123.232 wrote:

Also unlike nations like the U.S.A. racism in Japanese is not directed so much at people of a particular race or ethnic group but rather those who are "non-Japanese".

Isn't it just exclusivity against outsiders that can more or less be seen everywhere. If we keep this, this should be moved to a right place. --Nanshu

I agree, this article is very biased with little evidence. Many of my friends visited Japan and did not face any discrimination and many were Filipinos. I hardly believe the Pinocchio inccident for it will create an outrage in the world. This is a serious problem in Wikipedia for racist people who hates Japanese will make the Japanese people evil. Look at the Koreans and the Chinese hatred at Asian Cup.

While I think that the article is heavily biased and contains numerous inaccuracies, I think Japan's nationalistic exclusivity, where it exists, is very racist; 'Japanese' means 'Japanese by heritage' -- ie, 'looks Japanese and can trace roots back to Japan' -- and is little different from any other sort of racism. Consider Alberto Fujimori's easy repatriation to Japan and Arudou Debito's difficulties being admitted to a Japanese onsen despite holding Japanese nationality. --Tlotoxl 04:37, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

They are different in nature. The former is an administrative case and the latter is a cultural issue.

Still, "outsider" does not depend on race. Ex-inhabitants of a city find it difficult to blend into a rural community. This is the same in substance. --Nanshu 01:03, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I disagree (no surprise there, perhaps :) ). The case of Alberto Fujimori's easy repatration and acceptance by the Japanese indicates to me a sense of racial cohesion -- it doesn't matter that a Japanese race doesn't exist, the right look and the right last name means your 'in'. The opposite is demonstrated by the case of Arudou Debito (and his mixed children) not being allowed into an onsen. He and his daughters were all Japanese citizens, but were excluded on the basis of race. How can that not be an example of racism? That racism is (to a degree, I don't think that Japan is that bad, on the whole) a part of cultural does not mean that it is not racism. I agree that not all ostracism is racism, but when there are clear examples of ostracism based on race, how can that be anything but racism? -- Tlotoxl 03:32, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Again, they are different in nature. Fujimori has dual citizenship. That's all. Or do you think jus sanguinis is racism? Debito's case seems racism, but ironically that's a product of the onsen manager's attempt to avoid racism.
The following is my personal opinion that isn't directly related to this article. Debito and Japanese left-wing activists are too busy with expanding rights but they forget to work out practical solutions to establish a climate where these rights are assured. They are complainers who expect others, not themselves, to resolve issues. In the case of onsen, he doesn't propose a method to distuinguish sensible people from unwelcomed hooligans. --Nanshu 02:57, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

How was the manager attempting to avoid racism by barring onsen entry to people who didn't 'look' Japanese? I agree that some rights activists risk creating a negative environment for visible minorities in Japan even as they make progress in having rights recognized (not expanded, mind you -- Arudou and his kids were discriminated against on the basis of race, a violation of the Japanese constitution; it's not even a question of foreigner-rights). I'd hardly call Arudou left-wing, though, just because he thinks his kids should be allowed, as Japanese citizens, to be treated with the same dignity as other Japanese citizens.

As for Arudou not proposing a method to distinguish sensible people from unwelcome hooligans -- I would think that a) that's not his problem and b) the answer is already obvious: people should not be prejudged on the basis of the colour of the skin or the height of their noses. If the onsen manager wants to discriminate, he's still welcome to discriminate against individuals based on their previous history with the onsen. If that's not sufficient, he could simply verbally inform "suspicious looking individuals" of the rules of etiquette or make the onsen member-only, where membership requires the applicants to answer a simple questionnaire. These may not be great solutions, but they are workable and imo they certainly beat violating the Japanese constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I think the racism in Japan is quite evident. And it seems to me, but I need to confirm that, that the Japanese people is perhaps the second ethnic group with most racist and xenophobic issus, being the Africans the first group. Next are Europeans, but by a very large diference. I have many studies and situations on which I can quote. Just recently, the Japanese department of OGame was unnoficially accused for xenophobic action by a small non-Japanese citizens group, but they alleged lack of server space. However, they banned some players from OGame international for good, just because they registered. Of course this is not an important issue. It is just a game, but indeed is a mirror of something. I have several other case studies, but I will not mention them here. However, it is notorious the lack of manners and courtesy from Japanese citizens to foreigners (examples are burping, laughting at, making gestures or pointing towards with), because they are aware that foreigners are misleaded to think that lack of manners is a common thing in Japan. This has been discussed in several forums. Samuel Lourenço (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Getting a little bit off topic... ;) -- Tlotoxl 06:47, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Nanshu has made a point already. The truth is there is really such a racism issue in Japan as the West has. Notice Korean and Japanese are the same race after all. There is no Japnese race. It yet does not mean no discrimination. The content itself is insigtful, but the title and headings are probably misleading. -- Taku

How about moving the article to discrimination in Japan or something? It is rarely known but koseki issue for instance is one of very important aspects that cannot be found in the West. I am a Japanese national living in the US and was very surprised when I was able to obtain a social security number. In Japan, Japanese means really different than you mean Americans in the US. This kind of mindset is often called mura shakai in Japan and I think it is unique to Japan, regardless if it is good or not. -- Taku

No it's not unique in Japan. China is pretty much the same. It's hard to get a Chinese citizenship if you don't have any relation to anyone born in China. The asian concept of nationalism is very different from the western multicultural model. One can call himself/herself as a Canadian/American or even British/French as long as he/she holds a passport/citizenship ID of the said country. For others to denounced that would be racism. In Asia, you have to actually named and looked like the people of that country in order to be accepted as a "national" of that country. For many Asians, nationality and citizenship is one and the same thing.

Replying to that, I must mention that China already has populational excess. So, it doesn't mean that they are racist. It is hard to obtain Portuguese citizenship too (not as hard as in China), bu we already have one million immigrants, that is considering that we have 10 million natives. That is roughtly 10% of the population. There is always discrimination from the Japanese towards the Chinese. That post is one of them, or else you would give a more "happy" example. There are other countries that you should mention (or perhaps not). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.59.163 (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I just find it ethnocentric for many Japanese to think that they are unique in the world. Such as in this article, mentioning having Kanji as something that is unique. Well the Chinese have the WHOLE set of Chinese characters that foreigners have to decipher. How does that make Kanji the unique thing about Japan that foreigners have to face? I'm not saying that the japanese langauge isn't unique, i'm saying to call Kanji as something uniquely Japanese that is a stretch from the truth. All foreigners have difficulty with the local language no matter what foreign country he's in. The article makes it seems like kanji makes Japanese the hardest language to learn, which is just nonsense. --Kvasir 20:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I prefer a more general topic like Foreign people in Japan. --Nanshu

I think it might make sense to change the topic from Racism in Japan to Multiculturalism in Japan or Ethnic tensions in Japan or something like that, but Foreign people in Japan seems wrong since Okinawans and the Ainu (and zainichi Koreans, by almost any sensible definition other than the Japanese government's) are not foreigners in Japan. -- Tlotoxl 03:32, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

They look better. I disagree on Zainichi, but that's not the point here. --Nanshu

Since no one is going to move, I did it. Let me know your thoughts. I like a word ethnic, which implies foreign people by definition. -- Taku 03:45, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

---

I expected to find something here about the Ainu and more about the Okinawans. Rmhermen 20:29, Oct 10, 2003 (UTC)

---

Would anyone care to back up the 'roughly 25% of TV programs' statistic? I know a lot of crimes in Japan are blamed on Chinese, but the statistic seems suspect. This is an encyclopedia and as such is surely not a place for anecdote and free speculation. -- Tlotoxl 11:21, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Here is the number from NPA's yearly factbook since I thought you could use real numbers. Now keep in mind that this year's persecuation rate is around 25%, Japan is surrounded by the sea, and China is a communist nation and a travel permit is required to go abroad. The decision is up to you.

In 2002, 16.212 foreigners were caught committing 34.746 crimes; of those 12.667 cases (36.5%) and 6.487 criminals (40.0%) were Chinese. Brazilian committed 5272 cases (15.72%) and 1186 criminals (7.3%). Korean committed 2815 cases (8.1%) and 1738 criminals (10.7%). They are top 3 countries with number of criminals. So it is okay statistic wise to have 2 in 5 foreign criminal be Chinese.

Now the total number of crime cases committed in the same year is 546.934 by Japanese and 24.258 by foreigners, the ratio is roughly 27-1. This looks okay at first but when you compare categories, it becomes really clear that there is a problem. Japanese committed 6925 violent crimes but of those, 2531 are arson and rape. While foreigners committed 323 violent crimes but only 42 cases are classfied as such. At this point, ratio goes up from 33-1 to 22-1 and this isn't a good number.

Lesser known but more troublesome is that foreigners act in group when committing a crime. Of 24.258 cases, 14.919 cases (61.5%)have one or more accomplice while Japanese cases are only 101.911(18.6%). More troubling is of the crime committed by two or more, for Japanese, 63.7% are pairs, 19.0% are triples, 17.4% are four or more. In comparison, for foreigners, 24.4% are pairs , 34.5% are triples, 41.1% are four or more.

Revth 18:41, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Are there people called "second-country person"? I don't fully understand the meaning of sangokujin.

The term sangokujin was originally meant as 'the group of people from countries not involved in WW2' and was a term of law. The English translation of this should be 'Third party'. So, sangokujin actually point to two ethnic groups; North and South Korean because their country didn't exist, Chinese from the Manchuria and to the lesser extent Taiwanese because they were the part of Japan. So "second-country person" of your question would be Allied nation that fought Japan in WW2.

Revth 16:46, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I have a question to all 'foreigners :)' whether their countries have landlord make a contract in the contractee's native language. While the fact that writing Japanese is difficult is a cause of the problem to the lenting issue, I think this is a quite peculiar issue with odds unfavorably stacked against Japanese.

Revth 18:58, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Did heavy rewrites and added more informations mainly on Japanese attempts to stop descrimination. I think it looks a lot better now. Revth 18:52, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

How Japanese 'Know' Criminals are non-Japanese

Can we just condense this into a single sentence?

"The Japanese media frequently reports that unidentified and unapprehended criminals are "foreign" or sometimes from a particular country, based on linguistic clues provided by witnesses or victims." -- Paul Richter 08:37, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Difficulty assimilating into Japanese Society - Kanji

Nothing in this paragraph is specific to Japanese society -- anywhere in the world, if you can't read the language, it's an obstacle to assimilation. And with the latest change, it's starting to sound like a travel guide...

Unless someone defends it, I'm going to delete it. -- Paul Richter 09:39, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Kanji are a problem specific to Japan (well, and China too, of course). Whereas you can get by in most other countries in the world by reaching fluency in the spoken language and learning a smallish alphabet, Kanji offer a much bigger obstacle to assimilation than Greek or even Malayalam. Take out the bits that sound like a travel guide if you want (like 'even Japanese get lost') and reword the paragraph if you want, but IMO you can't have an article about ethnic issues in Japan without mentioning a major stumbling block for foreigners who would otherwise quickly assimilate. -- Tlotoxl 10:20, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

True, kanji may be a stumbling block for foreigners in Japan, but what are you suggesting Japan to do? You cannot force the Japanese to change something so central to their culture, simply in order to make foreigners assimilate with ease (the other difficulties regarding assimilation, such as the koseki, are things the Japanese can change. The language is not.) You don't see Americans simplifying their language so that Japanese immigrants have an easier time pronouncing the letter "r". Besides, the Japanese did not make the language difficult on purpose so that they could exclude foreigners --- it simply turned out that way through history. This issue does not belong in this article, whose main focus seems to be racism towards foreigners in Japan. It gives the readers the misconception that the Japanese are making efforts to purposefully exclude foreigners.

I think the paragraph on Kanji is irrelevant here. ALL foreigners face a language barrier. Whoever wrote the paragraph responding it has a valid point. The language issue isn't unique to Japan. It has nothing to do with racism and ethnic issues. I don't see a racism article on the US, for example includes a paragraph on English and how hard it is for others to learn. --Kvasir 21:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

---

"Gaijin, Gaikokujin"

I am fully Japanese by blood, currently a citizen of America, but I have also lived in Japan. I have always wondered why people who are not native to Japan take the term "gaijin" or "gaikokujin" to be offensive or racist. It is certainly not slang or a racist term such as "jap" "chink" or "kite" (please excuse my use of these words. I am only typing them to give examples of racial slangs in English and to illustrate a point). "Gaijin" and "Gaikokujin" are simply the Japanese translations of the word "non-native" or "someone not native to Japan," but never in my experiences in Japan have I understood it to be derogatory. It is used in the same way that people in the United States identify me by saying "you are an Asian." For an untrained eye, it is hard to recognize a person's exact nationality at first glance (many Americans cannot distinguish my nationality at first glance. They often guess I am Chinese or Korean), so it is instinctive to use a general term such as "Asian" or "African American" or "Caucasian" in case you are unsure. The Japanese also use those terms "hakujin" (for Caucasian) and "kokujin" (for African American), but they also are accustomed to having the term "gaijin" when they feel like being even more general. It is certainly not mentioned in a condescending or derogatory manner (at least I never heard it used in that manner). I realize that many people are indignant because they are still labeled as "gaijin" despite the fact that they have Japanese citizenship. You might also be thinking it is unfair that someone like me, a Japanese person living outside of Japan, is not labeled a "gaijin". However, you should not feel offended. I do not feel offended when someone calls me "Asian" or "Japanese" despite the fact that I have American citizenship. Besides, if you have watched popular Japanese T.V. shows nowadays, you would know that the term "gaijin" is used in a extremely positive light. David Beckham, the caucasian soccer player from England, as well as Ilhan Mansiz, the asian soccer player from Turkey, are so popular among young Japanese girls that they are frequently revered with the honorific title "sama". The African American fighter Bob Sap is also extremely popular, and many South Americans are also earning a name as K-1 (a fighting tournament) grows in popularity. Mixed-Japanese, including the popular idol and comedian Becky, are also gaining fame. Furthermore, the recent "Korean-boom" in Japan had many Japanese women swooning for Korean actors, and many Japanese men running after the Korean singer BOA. Also, "gaijin" are so popular (high demands) among eikawa classes (English classes) nowadays that English-speaking Japanese people, even if they are completely fluent, are often rejected from jobs as eikawa teachers. With increasing Western influence (particularly American) on popular Japanese culture, the term "gaijin", at least in my opinion, has more of a positive note than a negative one.

The word Gaijin HAS pejorative connotations, even if it is widely used as a contraction for Gaikokujin. The word Gaijin itself is very old, much more so than Gaikokujin, and meant outsider or person not to be trusted. (Actually all this and more is nicely explained in the Gaijin article.) Comparing being called Gaijin to Asian is mistaken, it should be compared to being called Hakujin (white person). Saying that since (caucasian) foreigners have a good image Gaijin can't be a bad word is completely unrelated. While Gaijin can't be compared to much stronger slurs like the N word for black people (and please forgive me for typing this, just as an example), I find it much like "Jap" for Japanese in English: while among friends you can mean well and use it as a simple contraction, the word IS pejorative. Justifying a word like this because many people use it without knowing its connotations reminds me very much of the debate about the Sambo word in Japan. -- Jair Moreno (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Burakumin, Kanji

Although they are mentioned in passing (and a link is given), it would be nice to have more information on the burakumin in Japan. As a "gaijin" in Japan I have experienced situations like those mentioned in this article, but compared to the employment and marriage-related discrimination that many burakumin face, they seem like simple annoyances.

I would vote to eliminate the kanji reference as well, or at least re-word it given its Anglo-centric POV. The overwhelming majority of foreigners in Japan are from China and Korea, countries who use (or at least study, in the case of Korea) Chinese characters ... therefore kanji actually EASE "assimilation" into Japan for the majority of foreigners. Also, the first line of the section states, "Although not racist in intention there are many differences between Japan and other countries that can cause difficulty for non-Japanese not including the difficulty of mastering Japanese" ... wouldn't kanji be included in this statement?

CES 06:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, more information on burakumin would be good. Originally the article was just about "anti-foreigner racism", so that's why burakumin weren't discussed much. I knew a girl who's parents had her fiance's family checked out in the registry to make sure he wasn't a burakumin. She said that if he had turned out to be one, the marriage would have been off because she couldn't raise her kids to be ostracised. What seemed weirdest to me was that she never even considered "the other option": just leave the country and raise your kids somewhere else.

Anyway, as for kanji, since it's as big a problem for Vietnamese as it is for Russians as it is for Indians as it is for English, surely it's not Anglocentric. Originally the article specifically mentioned that it was not generally an obstacle for Koreans or Chinese, but someone noted that kanji are no longer studied in Korea, so that bit was removed. Next, while zainichi Koreans certainly do constitute the overwhelming majority of "foreigners", I think they really belong in a section all their own -- obviously Kanji isn't an obstacle for a foreigner who is born in raised in Japan, regardless of his or her ethnic background. The kanji & language section is specifically about obstacles for foreign-born residents of Japan who are trying to assimilate. Of whom, I suspect, kanji-savey Koreans and Chinese no longer represent an overwhelming majority. -- Tlotoxl 08:43, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My point (the inital objection) was that difficulty with the language was not specific to Japan. Yes, attaining fluency is difficult, but it's a matter of degree. Every culture has a spoken language and most have a written, some are more difficult than others. But there is no human language which it is outright impossible for a foreigner to become fluent in.

On the other hand, it is no more possible for a foreigner to have a koseki than it is to change one's parents. That's why koseki and (to a lesser degree) inkan are not the same kinds of barrier as language. They are constructs of the culture which inherently assume Japanese ancestry. --Paul Richter 14:44, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't know whether you have ever studied Japanese but I'll put it this way, by knowing 2,000 words in English, one can read over 90% of articles in a newspaper. To attain the same level of understanding in Japanese, the number is 20,000, ten times as many as in English. Beside learning whole new sets of script to write, a non-native also have to learn 10 times as many words to become fluent and this doesn't include intricate combinaions required to use them. This may not be a problem for some, but it should be a big problem for most people.

Also, every year, Japanese invent well over 300 new words and of those, some 100 words remain in use replacing old words. Old or non-social people would invariably fall out of this race and start using the "arcane" Japanese. It is a bit like updating OS, a new version of OS will someday become too much for old computers. A same age group would speak the same version of Japanese unless he or she had specific taste for using old words. Non-natives could not and would not be able to use the same version of Japanese, the current Japanese in use is not 100% compatible with old "version" of Japanese that their age groups use and learning Japanese, current one of course, take them further and further away from the version of Japanese they should be speaking.

Unless, a non-native take time to indulge in old books and TV shows and study "arcane" Japanese, from their birth to the current date, and even then it IS impossible to become "fluent". So many words are missing from records and the "feel" of their use is impossible to record. Even a native speaker like me knows how so many words have become obsolete and talking about words I know and had used to younger generations means nothing, it's like teaching how to shoot arrows and fight with a sword to the US Army. Many of the things simply ceased to exist while others lost their importance and they will never have same meaning. A non-native will be using the version of Japanese that doesn't fit his or her age and will never be "fluent" enough, unless he or she is young or spent extremely long time in Japan. Revth 16:51, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• I think we're getting a little off topic here (inevitable given the open-ended nature of the "Difficulty assimilating into Japanese Society" header) ... the question should be whether kanji (and the Japanese language as a whole) is an ethnic issue. The language issue is not one of ethnicity or citizenship. Consider, an American (or German or Korean, etc.) could be born and raised in Japan, fluent in Japanese (because language learning is of course unrelated to what country you are a citizen of) but still have difficulties getting his inkan approved or entered in a koseki because of his nationality. I think if the header title was changed it would help: "Difficulty assimilating into Japanese Society" can include anything from chopsticks to driving on the left side of the road. Considering the topic of the article, a title like "Other ethnic issues complicating assimilation" might make it more specific. CES 07:26, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're right, bad choice of words. But still ... according to the Japan demographics article, Chinese and Korean immigrants make up 60% or so of all "foreigners" in Japan ... I do not know the status of hanja learning in Korea, but I guess my main point is that, as Mr. Richter mentions, it seems like the koseki issue vs. kanji issue are on completely different levels ... maybe expanding the introductory sentence to something like the following would appease everyone: "Although not racist in intention there are many differences between Japan and other countries that can cause difficulty for non-Japanese not including the difficulty of mastering Japanese and kanji" Or "Chinese characters" or something like that.

As for the situation mentioned about burakumin raising children ... although leaving the country is of course an option (a last resort of sorts), it seems sad that such strong racism persists within a race that prides itself on its one-ness. CES 02:48, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Japanese rarely discriminate by factors like place of birth, personal wealth and social upbringing"

I call bullshit on this sentence. Does anyone want to defend it? - Sekicho 13:41, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Nope. There's ample evidence to the contrary. Exploding Boy 15:26, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

The article also states that Japan is a very homogenous society where people rarely interact with foreigners. If interaction is rare, then occurances of discrimination is at most rare as well. In either case the statement uses a vague quantifier for something that is hard to measure. I am hesitant to remove statements on the basis that it is not strongly critical of Japan (something about an NPOV policy that I've read in the past..). —Tokek 3 July 2005 20:20 (UTC)

Japanese government

Addition by anonymous User:61.213.252.127, moved to Talk

Facts, please. The foreign population is 1.45%. The foreign crime (cases) last year was 1.8%. (NPA stats.) Ignore the numbers supposedly going up (they actually have gone DOWN year-to-year in some years) and focus on the actual percentages. These facts tell us that there is no foreigner crime problem in Japan and the media and politicians are doing what the media and politicians do everywhere: blaming the weak for a society's problems.

Robots

Can it be said that the obvious acceptance of robots in Japan comparing to other countries is influenced by the dislike of foreigners? In other countries, unpleasant jobs are left for foreigners.

No, I do not see how robotics is in any way relevant to xenophobia. Robots in Japan are looked on with hope, awe and admiration (which should be quite obvious with all the anime concerning robots, as well as the wildly popular robot Asimo) --- in no way are they viewed as "replacements for foreigners", which you seem to be implying. In case you have forgotten, America is famous for its ethnic diversity, and yet it is also one of the forerunners of robotic technology. Clearly there is no correlation.

There is the joke: When it comes to a labour shortage, there are 3 solutions: robots, women, and foreigners. Well theres a lot to be said about robots.

I think this post is a byproduct of the manufacturing of a brain fart. The action produced a brain fart and this post, and I can't tell which of them is worse. Sorry for my lack of courtesy, but as you can see, towards a stupid post like this, this is the only justified and reasonable reaction. Any softer reaction would be unreasonable. Really, are you inferring that foreigners an Japan are lobbying against the development of robotics? And since foreigners are as not influent in Japan as they are in other countries, therefore robots are accepted in Japan? That's stupid really. It reaches the level -100 of my scale of intelligence with a dent at the bottom of the scale. I'm really sorry If I'm being rude. The comment just proves that there is racism in Japan. Samuel Lourenço (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I question about this article. Where is the reference?

"Japanese children who are not born in Japan, or whose parents are not 100% Japanese, may experience racism from a very young age and can even be subject to beatings by their peers and adults, but mostly they are merely ignored. One recent example is of a 9 year old boy of 1/4 American heritage whose teacher aggressively pulled his nose while yelling "Pinocchio, Pinocchio" until his nose bled. Initially the school refused to confront the issue until the boy's parents became incessantly vocal. The confused child was quoted as asking his parents if he was "dirty" because he was 1/4 American. The teacher, a member of the Japan Teachers Union, was forced to resign."

I really wonder about this paragraph because there is no reference and name of the accused. This is highly unlikely since Japan is becoming more and more internationalized and Actually the Japanese adore mixed people because of the beauty. I have deleted it. I would suggest that it can be put back unless it has proper backup. Thanks

Why are they beautiful? Behind your pretense "mixism" there is racism. Make an effort next time. Samuel Lourenço (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This case is legit. The teacher also pulled his ears calling it "Mickey Mouse Penalty" or his cheeks (Anpanman) etc. He also said a number of quite disturbing things to the child after learning of his ancestry, such as "You should die fast. Jump off your mansion's roof today" or "You are stained because your blood is mixed". Here are some links about the case :

http://www.asyura2.com/2us0310/nihon9/msg/280.html http://www13.ocn.ne.jp/~ryouran/html/souka_8.html

No further doubts. Samuel Lourenço (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It saddens me to see that such a high profile and mature culture like the Japanese is engages racisms acts, one would think they would make a difference to not follow ethnic hate like Americans excesively do with black, latin, irish, muslims.. etc. Anyway, I cannot begin to see what good extreme nationality would do to any nation, it is true that the conservation of cultral aspects is a major task in every country(hell, i'd be proud if my country would had invented the anime) also music, arts and all those aspects cannot be lost just for globalization, but people, we have seen entire references to cultures long ago gone be kept in many manners(if you don't belive me go see all the information that's on celtic people and their mitology).

Do you make distinctions between "latins" (never heard of that race) and "irish" (it should be written "Irish")? Frankly! Latin is not a race. Is a set of cultures that speak a Latin based language. That includes Spanish, Portuguese and Italians. They are as caucasian as the Irish. Europe is a mix of cultures (between Celts and Iberians). Don't make sad distinctions. Also Iberians had a rich culture, perhaps richer that the Celtic culture, and so they gave a contribution. They had music and fine art. You would be surprised. The straw roofed houses of the Celts were prehistoric compared with the clay tiled houses of the Iberians, made of cut stone.

The evidence is sufficient enough to say that there is a racist problem in Japan and to even deny that the Nanking massacre ever ocurred (like some high profile japanese have done) is a direct offence to the sense of humanity ported by every human being. And also i do not understand why chinese people are that bad seeing, Japan cannot deny that they were haevily influenced by chinese culture long ago, and that their writing system is based in their, their custumes, etc, go and see if arabic countries (who share a strong conection in the past) are attacking each other. Japan is a very proud country and they have ALL the reason to be, I mean come on, their anime is a global success troughout the world(who doesn't know Dragon Ball or Tsubasa), the have games(like Final Fantasy, not only this but many) that can gather a large fan comunity in every single country, their movies are starting to make it to other countries very far away, many poeple are attracted to Japan women... But to not see that the whole world (excepting nationalist) is asking for unity and sharing of cultural things underliying a message of "hey, let your culture be your ambassador and not you're arm of disspeling people" is nothing but sad and with behaviors like this the world would always be a place of wars and hate.

Globalization and inmigrations CANNOT weak or undo a culture, I'm from Colombia (a country most of you don't even know it exists) we were colonized by Spain with very violent acts, and sure several aspects of their culture sticked to us but let me tell you that our dances, music and literature always make it to our carnivals and fanfares. I hope and I'm sure that someday I'll go to Japan and some Japanese will come close and ask me if i wanna have a drink with him/her and talk about our contries... 190.24.176.52 17:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Salim

You can sit and wait for that, since it will never happen. Samuel Lourenço (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

kokujin

is "kokujin" the correct word? The link presents it as no kind of pejorative term. Nagelfar 07:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I am a white American who lived in Japan from 1986-1991 and the term "hakujin" was used to refer to a white person and the term "kokujin" was used to refer to a black person. I did not detect that the terms themselves were used in a derogatory fashion. HOWEVER, it is quite obvious that there is an immense pressure to conform and "be Japanese" in Japan. As in all countries there are racists and non-racists; but I can assure you that I saw many instances of the things I'm about to list: Japanese who lived abroad and came back to Japan were considered "tainted" by foreign influence; people of mixed race (half Japanese and whatever) were severly teased and picked upon in school; there is a racial pecking order with pure Japanese at the top and below that, in order were other Asians (except Koreans and Filipinos), whites, blacks, and then Filipinos and Koreans; bars that do not admit foreigners; taxi drivers that don't pick up foreigners (usually older people who had been in WWII); ethnic Korean families who've been there for years that are not allowed citizenship because they're Korean; single Asian women (because the authorities are afraid they're prostitutes). My wife, who is Thai, she was under suspicion with the customs officials when she was single because they were afraid she was a prostitute (which she wasn't) and had trouble getting her visa renewed once because of it. Only because of me intervening did they grant her a new visa. This was all because she was a single non-Jaopanese Asian woman. Most of the Japanese I met were nice and polite, but there is a definite racist idealogy running through the culture and to pretend it's not there is nonsense.Rlevse 17:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Kokujin is a black person, there is nothing racist about the word. You can use it freely.

The ethnic slur for black person in Japan is Kurombo, it means blacky, but is as offensive as using the N word in the USA.--Caligvla 06:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic Minorities

The article intro listed some of the "Japanese" ethnic minorities, but as I read on, the article seems to be only about racism against foreigners. Where is the material on the Ainus, Okinawans etc? The article as it stands, should be named "Racism (or Xenophobia) in Japan". There's definitely nothing on ethnic minorities. Refer to the Japanese article linked from this page. Now THAT's what this article should be about if it were to be named "Ethnic Issues in Japan". --Kvasir 21:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Citations

I am surprised that this article has not one citation within the text. Especially a line like "In October 2004, an African-American man living in Kyoto Prefecture sued the operator of an optical shop after the operator denied him entry, stating 'Get out. I hate black people.'" makes me think it is the contributor's anecdote which isn't appropriate. Very serious claims are made in this article, and while I believe that it is accurate, citations to reputable sources seem necessary. ThreeAnswers 01:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It isn't all accurate. The police/immigration need a reason to see your ARC, they can't just demand it as claimed here.GnosticScouser 07:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This seems rather naive. Of course they can demand it. It doesn't matter if they're not supposed to. Even businesses can demand it, even if they aren't supposed to. Japanese police are not supposed to do a lot of things, but there are few sanctions taken against officers that, for example, perform an illegal search. --C S (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This Article need Revamp

I think the article is just beating around the bush. The article require focus. There are three core issues I can see from the article. (1) Access to Service (onsen, housing, pub) (2) Illegal immigrants and crimes (3) Assimilation/Integration (Zainichi). FWBOarticle.

I hope people don't get offeded by me saying that this article had "gaijin" bias. The issues relating to Zainich, Ainu, Okinawa and Burakumin should be discussed first. FWBOarticle

I disagree - the article is quiet focused.I also don't think that the racism against native minorities should be discussed before that of any other visible minority, there is no minority hirarchy necessary when writing about racism and I am sure those minorities will add their experiences if they are able to read English.Everybody can edit Wikipedia, remember?

This article should deal with the "issues". The fact that some Japanese are racist isn't issue. FWBOarticle

Finished editing. Engrish need to be corrected. Important terms need to be wiki linked. I also think that lot of "cultural" debate degenerate into existential agonies about nature of Japense culture. But me wiping the other sections would offend some people so I leave it as it is. Bye. FWBOarticle

Rearranged the sections. Hope I didn't mess it up too much. But I think this is a better structure. I think several section need trimming. Lot of duplication can be transfered or deleted. FWBOarticle 08:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Illegal immingrants and Crimes

I got Abobe file which shows the official crime statistics relating to foreigners. [1] For some reason, I can't read it. Can someone, who can read it just copy paste the statistics. FWBOarticle

Valid discussion should be about proporion of crimes committed by different nationality in relation to their population. The nature of crime, violent or non violent (visas). Prevalence of crime committed by foreign pair or group which indicate that they committed many crimes before getting caught. Validity of media report in case of "linguistic" clue. FWBOarticle

The English in this article is horrible

I can tell a non native speaker wrote it. It could use a lot of editing. I did a few sections then I got tired.

Me thank you very much. (^^). FWBOarticle

Non-native English speakers are allowed to contribute to the English Wiki, am I right? <Loge>

Don't tell me now that non-native English speakers cant contribute to Wikipedia. Spellings apart, their knowledge about certain thinks might be useful. And is is easy to correct an article.

Hello? try using spell-check once in a while please ESPECIALLY if your non-native.

As another fact non-native English is harder to read for other non-natives as they have less experience reading english and cannot understand that this is not wordplay but in fact inaccuracy PS. i edited your most surprisingly inaccurate comment in a show of goodwill :P

Racism section is redundant

Racism issue = Ethinic issues. And all the contents of Racism section is discussed elsewhere in the article. Plus, the article is getting larger than the recommended size. The whole section should be wiped. FWBOarticle 06:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If you think some content in the section did not deserve deletion, feel free to recover it in appropriate section.. Howeve, please remember that the article is currently at the right size. It may be more appropriate to recovere deleted content in sister article or just recovered as a link in "See also" section. FWBOarticle

--> Shouldn't the entire page be changed to Racism in Japan, to put it in line with the equivalent pages about other countries such as Racism in the United States / United Kingdom / China etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.197.102 (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Many establishments in Hokkaido had signs stating "Dogs and Ainu not allowed".

They said the same thing about the Chinese when the Europeans had special privileges in China during the "unequal treaty" era. I believe that accusation has been debunked by a Chinese scholar, and I question if such signs existed for the Ainu in Japan. I am NOT an expert, so please don't get angry.

I also wonder the info is true. I have never heard of it, and after googling a bit could not find any such info too. Anyway, as the infomation of "No Dogs and Ainu" was incorporated on 15:53, 30 January 2006 by user:FWBOarticle, I want to hear from him.

• The "No Dogs No XXXX" signs were from the USA, NYC had signs that read "No Dogs No Irish", I think we have a case of wishful thinking. However, it wasn't uncommon up until the 1970s for school kids in Hokkaido to throw rocks at Ainu children when they saw them. Today there is a greater respect for Ainu culture, food, music, etc. Japanese are now more interested in promoting and perserving what is left of the Ainu culture.--Caligvla 08:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What about Americans?

I believe the WWII generation in Japan has a certain distrust towards white Americans. Just as the Cold War gen. in the US has a distrust towards Russians. - Jim Bart 06:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That's still there, yes, but Japanese people under the age of 65 tend to love the USA and Americans, unless they have some particular reason not to (e.g. that old story about Shintaro Ishihara getting beaten down by a Marine as a kid). This is one of the few countries where the US gets an overwhelmingly positive approval rating (Singapore and the Philippines being the only other examples I know of in Asia). - Sekicho 05:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sekicho is correct, Japanese who grew up during the American occupation have a deep love of Hershey Chocolate and Chewing Gum. US Troops would hand them out to kids. They also we supportive of the US treatment of the Emperor and how Kyoto was spared from destruction. Genearl MacArthur was loved at the time and loved to this day, his office at GHQ is still perfectly perserved. It was a sad day in Japan when he left.

Also don't forget Mongolia where the US is well respected and George W. Bush had a 90% approval rating less than a year ago.--Caligvla 07:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Lol, American Anime-enthusiasts moving to Japan only to be called "dirty gaijin" by every Japanese storeowner under their breaths. Anyone know the statistics of however many people migrate to Japan from US per year?

Japan for the Japanese

Japanese isn't a race, it's an ethnic/cultural group. Let me make an anology. China --> Britan, Japan --> Ireland, Korea --> Scotland Intranetusa 09:08, September 22 2006 (UTC)

Poor Analogy. Perhaps, Chinese Groups-->Romance Continuum, Ainu-->Celts (or Basques, I suppose), Japanese and Koreans--->Germanic Continuum...That would be my pedantic analogy. You can't just say that the differences between Japanese, Koreans and Chinese are in anyway analogous to Europe. For starters, the difference between Japanese and Koreans are one thing, but then JUST looking at the Chinese alone, we're talking serious ethno-linguistic differences "from sea to shining Xinjiang". 98.249.209.39 (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Tom

I truthfully see nothing wrong with it. A nation should have a right to protect their culture and race. This isn't the case in Europe and it's leading to riots, and increases in both crime and rape. Japan should not be forced to let in thousands of people from other races and cultures because it's popular in Europe, let them keep their own socieity and not be forced to turn into some third world hellhole like is happening in areas in France, Sweden, etc. Volksgeist 09:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Third world hellhole like in Sweden? I beg your pardon? However, these "foreign foreigners" aren't the only ones being discriminated for their ethnicity. As far as I have heard from multiple sources including wiki, the indigenous people get discriminated against as well, though not the same way I imagine (and as such old indigenous people usually are discriminated in any corner of the world they live in). (see here for more info about the Japanese) So, what is the point of this "Japan for the Japanese" talk? I'm somewhat confused, as I thought the issue and point of this page is to discuss topics about what ethnic issues that exist in Japan, not if it's right or not. ZNull 20:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people were brought to Japan as slaves or forcibly brought to work in slave-like conditions in dangerous mines, etc. Their descendants only speak Japanese and decided to remain.--Sir Edgar 09:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Opinion is not relevant here because of the NPOV policy. We're not here to say whether Japan should admit more foreigners, or to say how it should treat the people of foreign ancestry who already live there. We're just reporting the facts. - Sekicho 07:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As a mixed European I must say I agree with Volksgeist. Also Sekicho npov policy is a debatable one considering that the language of rascism is skewed anyway, to be Chinatowns are a racist construct...(sir Mix alot)

I also agree with Volksgeist, trying to preserve ones cluture is not racist in and of itself. Certain aspects of this article would only be considered racist by North American standards and labeling them as such projects a POV--Caligvla 07:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You claim that a"North Americans" would consider this racist by their standards, but they are not in the worlds eyes. How can you claim that the putting down of others to preserve your way of life is not racist. When you discriminate against others based upon factors such a birthplace, you discriminate people on factors they have no control over. The Japanese repression of other cultures is no different than the American repression of American Americans. Thus, it does not matter where you live, what this article claims the Japanese are doing is what people of any continent would consider racism.Llamanator (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Llamanator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.113.89 (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Assimilation and Integration section

I think the assimilation and integration section should have these additions:

• Unlike other countries that only use 1 alphabet set, Japan use Hiragana, Katakana, and Romanji.
• Unlike Chinese-speaking countries, the same Kanji in Japan have multiple readings-pronunciations, i.e. kun'yomi, on'yomi, & nanori. In standard (Mandarin Chinese) there is usually only one reading per Kanji.
• Unlike BoPoMoFo in Taiwan/ROC or PinYin in China, the Furigana used in Japan to help read Kanji could be written in 2 different alphabets. Then you find out that if you're singing karoake, the same character has yet another totally different pronunciation.  ;)

-- Adeptitus 23:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And I think this article should stick to Ethnic issues in Japan, not details of the Japanese language. -- Paul Richter 01:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I also agree this is the wrong place for that information, however they are important points and should find a home in another aricle.--Caligvla 07:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the article should not only stick to Ethnic issues in Japan, but to issues, not things that can be solved with a few hours of study - usually before one even sets foot in Japan. It should also not be repetitive, and should not list one point as though it were two separate issues, as the above suggestions are/do. elvenscout742 21:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Korean Section

Section currently states that Koreans migrated to Japan during colonial period without giving context to the adverse circumstances that necessitated and forced the migration. The main Zainichi article handles this well and this section should follow that lead. Secondly, the section states that due to discrimination, many Koreans are leaders of boryokudan. While the referred statistic is true it would be a bit of a stretch to just conclude that many Koreans have become boryokudan leaders without context. Zainichi have also had notable presence as businessmen, singers, entertainers, athletes, etc.. Rather than just giving statistic for criminal Zainichi, the phenomenon of significance for the purposes of this article would seem to be the effect racial discrimination has on Zainichi as a minority population in Japan. Just pointing out the boryokudan statistic is a bit awkward and doesn't really fit into this section. The section about pachinko parlors is also out of place and has no context. There are far more significant Zainichi issues that should be described rather than what's there so far. I'll leave the last two paragraphs although I feel they should be redone but I will go ahead and make appropriate edits for the first half of this section.

Also the pachinko parlors are described as being owned by Zainichi and Korean Japanese. Since there's been no migration of Koreans from NK to Japan, why would SK immigrants send money to NK. This seems incorrect.Melonbarmonster 02:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There was migration of Koreans from what later became North Korea. Korean immigration was a consequence of Japanese occupation, which preceded partition and probably caused it in some sense. And it's quite plausible that some migrants of SK origin are sending money to North Korean relatives. Partition is a relatively recent and artificial phenomenon, so it's highly likely that there are a lot of families that were split along with the country. --Aim Here 13:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Other side of the coin

So, has anyone tried to actively look for notable examples of tolerance from Japanese authority figures/celebrities or in the Japanese media? I've always heard a lot about issues with discrimination, but as someone recently reminded me, we in the English-speaking world may simply never hear about any good things because they don't make good headlines. So I thought I would ask, just in case. 07:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Tolerance my ass, the only time they treat foreign people well is when they are tourists in which case it is only as a bland attempt to trick them and make them come back.Serialkillerwhale (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Gibberish Comment

I removed a sentence of anonymous commentary from the article, since it belonged in a talk page, so I'm putting it here. It is in reference to this part of the article:

• 'Many youth in Japan feel a tremendous burden to keep the culture alive and many times leave the country and completely assimilate to their new homeland. This has compounded the problem in two ways: it exacerbates the decline in population and fosters a deeper fear of the influence of outside cultures.

and the comment on it is:

• 'This sentence is utter gibberish; it says nothing about racism in Japan, which is rampant, but largely non-violent; indeed, it says nothing at all. Is that the BabbleFucked version? (Kurogane, TM)

--82.45.163.18 13:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"American People"--Dubious statements

From the "American People" section:

"Japan is still effectively under a form of loose occupation by the US"

"Japan... is now a de-facto American colony"

"Americans... would benefit from the more equal interaction that would become possible if America were to voluntarily withdraw from Japan, or if Japan were to demand this"

This seems a tad baseless and not at all NPOV..... TariqAlSuave 21:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I agree. This particular article is a mess of Point of View masquerading as fact and original research. I'm surprised that it received a "B" rating so far on the quality scale. J Readings 21:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I've lived the racism, it's not overt at all times but it's oppressing, I assure you, no matter how much Japanese you can speak, no matter how well versed in Kanji you are, and how much more of Japanese history you know than the average Japanese citizen and ethnically Japanese person, if you are white you will NEVER be fully accepted by the vast majority of Japanese people, end of story. It's a fact, I live here (in Japan) in fact I like it here, but it's undoubtedly racist as any ethnocentric society is, they simply don't have enough foreigners to get them all used to us. NHK isn't helping either... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.156.120.179 (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you don't speak Japanese as well as you think? I don't say this to belittle your experiences, just to offer a potential reason for them. I have no problems in Japan, and I'm white, and my Japanese isn't even that good. Maybe you see things as racist which aren't really racist, they're just people being jerks. I don't know. That sort of stuff should stay out of the article though. -- Bakarocket (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't speak English that well and I'm accepted in England. I've received many complements at forums. And I bet if you don't speak the first word of Portuguese you are accepted in Portugal with open arms. We even accept foreigners better that accept our owns, and we have a well preserved ,vast and sophisticated culture. See the Portuguese literature. It is a world by itself. Of course I mention this for those who say that must be done in order to preserve the culture of Japan. Samuel Lourenço (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, a Western guy moving to another Western countries isn't a fair comparison. A black guy living in Japan pointed out to me that most white never experience the life of minority until they come to live in Japan. Most westerners either move to live in other Western countries, in which they can easily blend in, or if they live in developing countries, large sum of money shield them from many unpleasant things. One get a different perspective when you compare a white living in Japan to illiterate immigrant in their own countries. You will be surprised how many immigrant doing menial job in North America or Europe actually have university degree from their home countries. Vapour (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is hilarious

This is a perfect example of one of Wikipedia's more annoying problems. When people see things they don't agree with, instead of doing their own research and removing the statements they think are unverifiable, they tag EVERY GODDAMN SENTENCE in the article with "citation needed." This doesn't help Wikipedia. It makes it look like a sloppy first draft with editors' notes all over it. If you're too lazy to do the real research and the real work to rewrite the article but not too lazy to tag every single claim you don't like, then I suggest you invest the little effort you are willing to make into researching and rewriting a small section of the article, noting your changes here in the talk page, and trying to make this article *better* rather than a messy, annotated, "first draft" that trots out whatever petty political agenda one lazy Wikipedian felt like branding the article with for the whole world to see. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a debate forum. For Chrissake, the article has been tagged for improvement in sources since October 2006--do you think that filling it up with "citation needed"s is actually going to do anything? If I had more than a passing interest in the topic, I would go through and rewrite, but frankly I don't. Whoever filled the page up with 'citation needed' obviously does. 160.39.187.92 19:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is hilarious. It's just another piece of crap produced by Japan-hating POV-pushing editors. There exist no "Ethnic issues" articles for other countries (except a small one for Finland). Although the issue that this article addresses may be a legitimate one, the way this article addresses the issue is so fundamentally flawed and biased that it's beyond any form of help. But articles on Wikipedia rarely get deleted just because they are of poor quality. So it will stay here with tons of need-improvement tags, as a kind of joke that it is. --222.3.75.248 20:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree the "citation needed" tags, but don't see the point of the above anonymous poster. The article certainly covers something noteworthy, a lack of human rights or anti-discrimination protection in the world's second-largest economy. Terming it "ethnic issues in Japan" is what I object to as vague, propose renaming it article to something like "institutionalized racism" or "Japanese legal racial discrimination" or something, any suggestions? RomaC 01:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This is (supposed to be) an encyclopedia, not someone's personal blog or electronic bully pulpit. By all means, please replace the tags with reliable sources if and when you find them. However, I agree with the anonymous editors above: the article needs to be completely re-written in accordance with Wikipedia policies. As it stands, it's such a mess from start to finish that I've avoided trying to re-edit it at all. I wouldn't know where to source virtually any of these assertions, which strike me as either point of view or original research or possibly even fringe views. No doubt, this is one of the reasons why no one has been able to add sources. Removing the tags also resolves nothing. As you know, someone will just put them back again--and rightfully so. On a more basic note, I'm wondering why this article even exists considering that there already exists an article entitled "Human rights in Japan". Why do we need both? Regards, J Readings 12:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the USA has a racism article, so while I actually agree with your sentiment that the article shouldn't really exist, it has a precedent. High profile countries, and especially ones with a history that affects other people, will have people who want to write about their experiences. I guess I didn't really say anything here. Sorry.--Bakarocket (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Racism in USA or racism in general are different issues. Here we are discussing issues related to the culture of Japan, so it makes sense to have this article. Indeed, It would make sense to have an article like this for each country that has an elevated index of racism. Samuel Lourenço (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No. This is a perfect example on how to edit Wikipedia. Facts are facts, even if they cannot be verified by Japanese. They sure are verified by other people. If you delete statements just because you don't agree, you are practicing censorship at its bull extent. You are mangling an article, a piece of knowledge, and that is like ripping the pages of a book, or even burning books. It is a crime against knowledge. You don't want to be part of the inquisition, don't you. The article is complete and it is excellent. It should be locked to prevent further attacks. Remember that this article is not yours to edit, not even your personal litterbox. If you wish to censor, go to wikipedia Japan. Samuel Lourenço (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Should a comment from a report connected to North Korea appear in intro?

Here is an editorial from Japanese conservative newspaper Sankei Shinbun about this particular U.N. report. "報告の陰に連携 (産経新聞「妙」 2005/11/13)

　国連人権委員会のディエヌ特別報告者（セネガル）が七日、国連総会第三委員会（人権）で、日本に存在する差別を指摘、それを受けて中国、韓国、北朝鮮の代表が日本を批判したという記事が目に留まった。「差別」の存在は厳粛に受け止め、解消に向けて努力するべきだが、あまりに見事な連携ではないか。「仕組まれた」という思いが拭いきれない。近年、 日本に「悪意」をいだくグループが「人権」を武器に、国連を利用し日本に”言いがかり”をつけることがよくあるが、 今回もそうではなかったか。そもそもディエヌ氏とはどういった経歴の持ち主なのか。そして、日本のどこをどれほどの期間調査したのか。また、彼をアテンドしたのはどういった団体だったのか。疑問は次々とわいてきた。国連広報センターに問い合わせてみた。明らかになった事実を記す。ディエヌ氏は１９９３年から２００２年にかけて国連科学文化機関（ユネスコ）の文化間・宗教間対話部長を務め、０２年に国連人権委員会により現代的形態の人種主義、人種差別、排外主義および関連する不寛容に関する特別報告者に任命された。今年の七月三日から十二日まで日本を訪れ、大阪、京都、北海道で被差別部落、在日韓国人・朝鮮人、アイヌ民族などのグループと面接調査した。訪問は初めてだった。　ディエヌ氏の調査をアレンジしたのは、反差別国際運動というNGO。この団体の理事長は武者小路公秀氏。ピースおおさか（大阪市）の会長であり、金正日の思想を普及しようとするチュチェ思想国際研究所と関係の深い人物である。（桑原聡）"

The important part being the last part which state that the trip was arranged by someone who also happened to have a deep link (i.e. ex-chairperson) to International Institute of the Juche Idea. Does a non English source count as a reliable source? Vapour (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It would if you translate it instead of posting some crap most people cannot read — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serialkillerwhale (talk • contribs) 13:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Citations Tags

I want to remove these there are tags after almost every sentence in some sections.RomaC 01:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Housing/Services

The section on housing and services contains a comment pertaining to there being signs in some places, stating foreigners are not permitted to use their venues or services.

As a foreign resident of Japan for over a year now, I have to argue with this. I have yet to see any such thing, despite hearing so much about it.

I believe this is a myth. Given, the experiences of one person for a year in a country do not prove that it is untrue - however, as there is currently no citation of this kind of situation (nor have I ever seen or heard of an actual, specific place that practices such a policy) I believe this comment should be removed.

Certainly, it should be split from the section regarding housing, as the reasons for landlords not liking foreign residents can be far more understandable and do not always concern racism.

Since including information into Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth (see WP:V), this section is actually something that can be easily sourced. Using Lexis-Nexis, Factiva, and Google News I was able to find several articles that report on the alleged housing discrimination in Japan. I say "alleged" because the journalists are simply repeating what might be considered "conventional wisdom." They themselves are not conducting any undercover reporting or citing academic research on this issue. I agree with the editor above that I have never come across discrimination in housing in all my years in Japan (and I've lived in quite a few places), but I'm open to the idea that it's possible. However, our personal opinions are irrelevant for this article. What matters are independent, third-party citations found in reliable sources. Those are still possible, I think. Regards, J Readings (talk) 12:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where in Japan you live, J Readings, but according to this Japan Times article, 94% of foreign residents in Tokyo report being refused by real estate agents. RomaC 11:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry RomaC, I edited your comment to correct your link. It had too many https.--Bakarocket (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised with the two comments above saying they have never encountered lodging discrimination. While for bathhouses, bars, hotels... you may rarely encounter signs stating "No foreigners", in real estate agencies you're more likely to find signs explicitly stating "Foreigners OK", such is the state of things. I'll look for sources. --Jair Moreno (talk) 05:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

Cleaned some, added refs (some are still needed), edited for style and clarity, removed unsuppoted claims and POV. RomaC (talk) 04:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Theres a word for this in Japanese

日本の民族問題 Nihon no minzoku mondai : Japan's natioanl problem. This is on the Japanese wikipedia, but I googled this, and theres a book that uses this word. So it aint just some word made up on the Japanese wiki. Maybe whenever this article is rewritten this word can be used somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.221.194 (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't know what Japan national issue is, but we know what "Ethnic issues in Japan "means. The title should be left intact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.59.163 (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct translation of 民族(Minzoku) is ethnicity, not nation. Given that Korean, Chinese and Japanese are the same race, ethnicity should be the most appropriate translation. However, that make inclusion of Burakumin incorrect. Simply put, it is in West where minority problem equal race/ethnicity. In non Westerns countries like India or Japan, the same context does not apply. Vapour (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I should also mention that the Japanese article does not mention burakumin. This is correct given that burakumin is a caste not racial or ethnic issue.

Surely, the most appropriate title to encompass this article is "Minority issues in Japan". Vapour (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

All of the Above

Plz dont make any comments or assertions w/o having a source ready. it doesn't matter how long you've lived in japan, nor does it matter if you know japanese people. Firstly "japanese" IS a ethnicity, they're also called the yamato ppl. We need someone who reads japanese and can llok up all these references(or personal anecdotes) on ainu racsim, maybe we could get someone to come over from the japanese wiki, who reads english. The citations are a serious problem, so i'm going to try and track down some ethnic encyclopedias this summer and fix this article. I'd personally like to see more about the ainu, i feel(POV) that they have a bigger role in ethnic problems than space is alocated to them here. I think ainu discrimination has less recently documented stuff than americans talking about being treated poorly.

Somemone take out the "citation needed"s for now. And no more crap about japanese culture being great or being content w/ anime controlling legions of followers, its completely irrelevent. Da Baron (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The intro

Should we place a comment, (indirectly) tainted by a North Korean Stalinist ideology, in the intro? Given that the comment is reported by BBC, it should not be censored out. However, a doubt about the impartiality of the comment has been raised by a major newsmedia, albeit a right wing one. Putting the comment, whose credibility is disputed, in the intro seems to be giving it an undue weight. We already have a complaint that the article is tainted by soapboxing editorial. Vapour (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are other comments made by Professor Muahakouji, as reported by Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), the official news agency of the DPRK (North Korea) government.

"The Juche idea is the most correct guideline indicating the road that should be followed by progressive humankind."[2] and

""We should more actively propagandize and disseminate the Juche idea among the world people and bring earlier a historic turn toward a new world to suit the present changed reality,"[3]

Page Merger

The AfD for Discrimination in Japan resulted in a merger to this article. No content has been merged yes (and there was little, as the article was formerly a coatrack for VAIBS accusations. However some salvagable material exists in the article history and some Reliable sources on the subject are linked to in the AfD itself. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

New article on Discrimination in Japan

A new article titled Minorities in Japan which details discriminatory practices in Japan was added yesterday by User:Vaibs2. I've placed an expert-subject tag on the article requesting a review by experts concerning neutrality, balance, etc. Now it appears that there has already been a recent AFD concerning a similar article under a different name (AfD for Discrimination in Japan). I think it would be best if editors from these pages could have a look at the new article to decide on merging or afd. Thanks for your help. CactusWriter 07:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Los688 vandalized part of Racial issues in Japan. It should be restored. --Planth (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

what is a race?

The article used to be at ethnic issues in japan. I believe that's a pretty good one because it avoids the issue of what is a "race". A better title may also be discrimination in Japan. I bring this up because recently there has been some reversion over whether to include material on Burakumin. I find the whole situation rather confusing. Many anthropologists would say Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese are all the same race, while the indigenous people like Ainu are different. My understanding is that this is a fairly prevalent view amongst Japanese scholars. Nonetheless, there is a viewpoint popular amongst the general public, I believe, dating back to pre-WW2 attitudes about other Asian countries, that "Japanese" refers to a different race. My understanding (possibly faulty) is that even the viewpoint that the original inhabitants of Japan were basically ancestors of Ainu is not well propagated among the general public.

So the question is, why are Koreans, for example, included in this article but not Burakumin? Is the former included because the general public considers Koreans a different race? Is this actually what they think? If not, why are they included? Are the latter not considered as racially distinct? There are theories which make them racially different than the so called "Yamato people", presumably to justify the discrimination (for example [4] which I found by Googling "racially distinct" + burakumin). According to Britannica [5], theories of Burakumin as "foreign" were once popular (and here I interpret the intent of labeling a group "foreign" to mean racially different). Even if these theories are no longer popular, their use as justification for such discrimination may make them relevant to an article on "racial issues". Some scholars even argue that "racism" is a term that applies to Burakumin and that Burakumin is in effect an "invisible race". This is a term used in an article added by an anon. Indeed, if one is discriminated against, simply by having blood relation to Burakumin, is that not in effect the same thing as racism?

In any case, I think these matters ought to be discussed and consensus fleshed out. I think the issue of what constitutes race for the purpose of this article have not been thought out throroughly. --C S (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If the article is really to be about "racial" issues, then Burakumin wouldn't belong; they're Japanese. Perhaps "Social issues in Japan" would work? "Discrimination in Japan" seems awfully broad. There's sexism, racism, homophobia, ageism... just off the top of my head that's already too much for one article. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, did you read what I wrote? Now while I'm not yet convinced of the merits of saying Burakumin discrimination is racial, you don't seem to have considered addressing any of the points I raised. Why are they "Japanese"? Do you realize they were not always (and with some groups nowadays) considered "Japanese"? There are scholarly theories, once popular (but apparently no longer), according to the sources I gave above, that the Burakumin are racially separate from "Japanese". It seems clear the intent and motivation for these theories were to justify discrimination against Burakumin. Thus it would seem racism plays a key role in the history of discrimination against Burakumin. Also, some argue that "racism" as a concept applies to the discrimination against Burakumin, since discriminatory practices sometimes hinge upon merely having blood relation to burakumin (and not being from buraku).

Furthermore, are Koreans "Japanese"? If not, why not? Mere assertion as you did above for Burakumin is not enlightening. What standard did you use to arrive at the conclusion that Burakumin are "Japanese" but the other groups listed are not?

The original title was "ethnic issues in Japan", which I like for the reasons you say. Note that ethnicity is considered to be separate from race. --C S (talk) 07:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"Um," yes I did, and let's not get all sarcastic, ok? The first reference I have right at hand is Louis Frédéric, Japan Encyclopedia (Harvard UP, 2002), who says "nothing distinguishes [Burakumin] racially from other Japanese." Not the definitive source on Burakumim, I'll allow, but a solidly scholarly reference nonetheless. And it's one of many. In 10 years of studying Japan I've never encountered a modern source that describes Burakumin as anything other than racially Japanese, although admittedly I haven't focused specifically on them. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And one more, this one a rock-solid scholarly source: Sharalyn Orbaugh writes "a discrete group of people [the burakumin] -- racially, linguistically, and culturally indistinguishable from any other Japanese -- has been made, throughout hundreds of years of history, to embody 'uncleanness' so that the rest of the Japanese social body could define itself as 'pure.' The premodern burakumin and their modern descendants have served to mark the margins of the 'viable' Japanese imagined social body." (Japanese Fiction of the Allied Occupation: Vision, Embodiment, Identity. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007). Exploding Boy (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Where did I get sarcastic? Nowhere in your response did address any of the issues raised or explain anything except that the Burakumin are Japanese, end story. What if I were to respond to your last comment in similar style with "No, Burakumin aren't Japanese". Would that be satisfactory?

Ok, you've now given some evidence that modern scholarly sources consider Burakumin as racially Japanese. Good! Now we can address the questions I raised. Are the other groups listed on the article page considered by such scholarly sources as racially distinct from the Japanese? As I mentioned, the scholarly evidence seems to weigh in on Chinese, Koreans, and Yamato Japanese as all being of the same race, whether you want to call that "Japanese" or not.

Is the fact that Burakumin were once considered as racially distinct from Japanese not sufficient for inclusion here? Hypothetically, if some group already listed here were in the future to be considered racially the same, would we have to remove the history of discrimination against them? What if such theories of racially distinctiveness are still used as a basis for such discrimination? Does it matter if such theories are discredited by your scholarly sources? In addition, I've raised this point twice already: if scholars refer to discrimination against Burakumin as "racism" regardless of racial identity, does that qualify this topic for inclusion here?

Note that these questions are all more or less the same as I raised in my first comment above, and they are clearly pertinent and yet to be resolved. --C S (talk) 08:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's all extremely murky, which is one reason why it would be better not to have this article at "Racial issues in Japan." Also, I'm not sure if you've mentioned this somewhere, or if it's in the article (which I haven't re-read recently), but where is the evidence that Burakumin have ever been considered a separate race, and which scholars refer to discrimination against them as racism? It probably doesn't matter really: one thing I think we can probably agree on is that "Racism" is not the best umbrella term for all these things. That's why I suggested "Social issues in Japan" as a solution. It would solve the problem of having to decide whether there's such a thing as race to begin with and if there is, who belongs to which race, and it would allow us to have a complete article, which we can never achieve if we limit ourselves with an overly narrow title. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's murky. Let me address your queries first. The evidence of Burakumin being a separate race is given in my first link above. The comment "However, there have been and continue to exist arguments that the burakumin are racially distinct from the majority of the Japanese people" is followed by footnote 4:

Ninomiya lists three main theories for the origin of the burakumin—these include the “etori” theory, the “aborigines theory,” and the “foreign-immigrant theory.” The dominant theory is the “etori” theory, which is the one taken in this paper. The “aborigines” theory argues burakumin descent from the Orokko tribe or a Hebrew tribe. The “foreign-immigrant” theory tries to argue that the burakumin were Korean or perhaps Filipino immigrants. (Shigeaki Ninomiya, “An Inquiry Concerning the Origin, Development, and Present Situation of the Eta in Relation to the History of Social Classes in Japan,” Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan, 10, pp. 47–154.)

I just now found another source through Google Books[6], which explains there was a "popular notion" that included the Burakumin having various physical differences, like one less rib (and other things that probably shouldn't be mentioned here).

The Encyclopedia of Britannica (which I also mentioned above) states:

Several fanciful theories about their “foreign” origins were once popular; the scholarly consensus is now that the original burakumin were simply impoverished Japanese who had drifted into beggary or lowly occupation...

So it seems the Britannica agrees with your sources on the current scholarly consensus. I hadn't really doubted this, but I hope as it is clear by now, the point of my questions actually took this as a starting point. Even if Japanese now consider Burakumin Japanese, they didn't always do so. So historically, I think there's a good argument for saying that racism played an important role in Burakumin discrimination. The other argument, which I think is the one made by the anon and his/her TIME magazine source, is that the Burakumin are in effect an "invisible race". This invisible race concept is actually fairly old, about 40 years, and there's a fairly well-known book, "Japan's Invisible Race". The idea of this book is that Japan has its own variety of racism, not based on physical differences but caste impurity. This has been taken up by further papers by others that argued that there is a Western idea of race and a Japanese one, and that the Western race concept does not take into account Japanese mentality. I can find these again, if you're interested, but I seem to have forgotten the exact searches I did to find them. In any case, I think this is an interesting argument, basically that on a page on racism in Japan, we shouldn't stick strictly to some Western race notion, but I don't find it as strong as the historical argument.

Getting back to what we should call this article, I don't understand why you propose "social issues in Japan". Social issues includes discrimination, which you already thought was too broad a topic. Social issues includes things like welfare, suicide, hikokomori, and many more things besides. That is why I liked the original title "ethnic issues...". There are good reasons people now say "ethnic group" instead of "race", and we've only touched on some of the reasons here. One day, perhaps some interested Wikipedian will create articles raised by these questions, but I agree for now, it's wise to just use a better title. I propose "ethnic issues in Japan" for that reason. If you agree, we can move the article back to that title and clean it up to reflect the ethnic angle more. Also, I'll try to improve the background section. it's rather lacking. --C S (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I guess even "ethnicity" gets us into murkier waters...so I am now thinking "minority issues in Japan". Or it might just be better of in the article Minorities in japan, which will probably be revamped a lot anyway. --C S (talk) 03:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Kenkanryu cover.jpg

The image File:Kenkanryu cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-Japanese citizens and crimes should be deleted

This section has no sources sited, and seems to try and push some agenda rather than report facts in an encyclopedia fashion. --Zaurus (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It sounds biased. NarSakSasLee (talk)

I disagree. I think I can provide sources like these. [7], [8], [9], [10], and [11]. I'd like to add sources as soon as possible but I'm busy right now. Oda Mari (talk) 05:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ryukyuan people

In regards to "The Ryukyuan people lived in an independent kingdom until it came under the control of Japan's Satsuma Domain in 1609", is a tributary state of Ming Dynasty (see Ryukyu Kingdom) really an "independent kingdom"? (--134.160.83.108 (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC))

I guess it depends on how you define "independent". According to the tribute article, China recognized the sovereignty of their tribute states (including Japan, apparently!). Maybe "sovereign" would be clearer than "independent"? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Two undo's i've made

I've undid a change attempted on two revisions. The first removes the referance that when the government attempted to ban discrimination the anti-hate speech recieved a very hostal media reception. However no referance of that is availible.

The second is a claim that 93% of all foriegners are discriminated at least once during housing. I'll admit that discrimination is serious in Japan, but such a poll sounds very baised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 00:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If you think that a statement requires a reference, you could tag it first, and if sufficient time went by without anyone adding a reference, then remove it.

If you think a provided reference isn't sufficient, you could take it to this talk page and start a discussion about it.

It's also a good idea to leave a comment in the edit summary telling everyone why you made the change. If you just delete sections of and article (especially a sensitive one like "Ethnic issues"), and don't explain why, then it comes across as vandalism. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I left a comment the last time I made an edit claiming the two referances are baised, but you removed them. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 23:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Why? For exactly the reasons I gave above. I added a to the uncited passage you removed after you removed it the first time. The other one came with a citation. If you believe it's biased, you should be talking about it here and try to reach consensus before just removing it. Also, I left you a message on your talk page immediately after reverting your edits. Please read it. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

OK fine i'll talk about it, but where do I start. I fail to see that there's anything to talk about. The to referances are untrustworthly. Anyone can post anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 15:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

We have a number of issues here.

One is that you claim the source cited for the 94% of foreigners being refused apartments at lest once is biased. The source is an article from The Japan Times. Are you claiming that The Japan Times itself is biased? Are you claiming the article is biased? In what way? I had a job supervising foreign teachers for about five years. Part of my job was apartment hunting. I was turned down on numerous occasions for apartments, and was told each time that the landlords wouldn't accept foreigners, even with a Japanese company as guarantor. Do you have any counter-evidence against the linked source? Merely believing it to be wrong is hardly a convincing argument. Is the world supposed to believe Graylandertagger over The Japan Times?

The other paragraph may have lacked a source, but that's why I added a template. If, after a reasonable amount of time, nobody could find a citation for the passage, I would have no problem with your removing it. Why the rush?

The last issue is most serious. Some of the undos made were by an ip address: 71.163.8.206. This address claimed that "Graylandertagger is right". Then this ip address corrected some typos on the message you posted right above this one. Why would that ip address correct your typos? And why would it do it so quickly? I strongly suspect a case of sock puppetry here. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have three answers to the three questions that you've asked me. First of all even though you claim to be a resident of Japan you are still one person. Your experience doesn't represent all foriegners as a whole. And incase your wondering no I don't expect that every thing you find the Japan Times to be perfect, but like any website anything can be posted. Just look at Aruduo Debitos behavior and you'll see what I mean. Anything can be posted. You can't believe everything you hear online, nor can you believe everything you hear in books, and nor can you believe everything you hear in documenterys. If your concerned about racism and you want to educate people about it fine. But the 94% survay is ondimentsional and feels more like propeganda civil rights groups use to create emotional depth. It serves only to make Japan look like the only country with ethnic problems, but it's no Russia from what i've heard is much worse and more verbally abusive toward foriegners. Also if you were discriminated why didn't you just file a complait. Or better yet file lawsuit. Doing so a can earn you a nice pot of money. If you let them get away with being discriminative than they won't learn anything.

Second of all I know i'm supposed to wait before texts without referances are removed. I've waited for what I believe to be a substancal amount of time, but just give me a time period and i'll wait that long if I must. I will however give you my thanks for tagging it by the way. Sorry I didn't do that before.

As for the third and final compaint you made about, sock puppetry. It seems that I will admit that i've done may share of long in and out, but that's because i'm simpily forced to do so. No matter how many times I discuss this you never even take a look at my perspective. I judges issues in a non-linear manner. You however sound like your trying to believe everything you hear online and judge by your experince in the country without compairing to other countrys. In fact from what I hear there are alot of countries that have the same problems Japan has in terms of racism.

I'l be fair. I haven't been to Japan, but I know that proper judgement in a non-linear manner requires more that just a trip to the country. A source can be accurate in one manner, but untrustworty in another. If you think my views are understating the racial issues the country have at least bear in mind that i've seen blogs by foriegners who live in Japan that say that they've never been discriminated once so please try to accept that I know the country has some problems. As for my sock puppetry I expect my wikipedia account to suffer the consequences, but i've done all I can and i'm exhasting any possiblity, but I know better to believe everything. When it comes to researching the best tool for researcher is the researcher himself.

This argument has gone on for long enough just for two small edits, but if I must converse further I will(or if the moderators allow my account to remain). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 00:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding earlier. My laptop broke, and I just got a new one today.

Please let us all know why you think that The Japan Times, a print newspaper established in 1893, is not a suitable reference, and what a suitable reference would be. You've offered us nothing more than your own belief that they are "biased", and have offered no counterexamples. The problem exists, just as racism exists in every country. How does pointing it out (with references) make someone a crusader like Arudo Debito? Aren't you going a bit overboard with your accusations here? I'm not even the one who put the information there in the first place---I'm just the guy who's preventing you and your sock puppet from removing sourced information from a Wiki article.

Why didn't I file a lawsuit? Maybe it's because I'm not in this country to earn a nice "honeypot", but to live my life. Maybe it's because I want to live a Japanese life, and prove to the Japanese that foreigners are not all loudmouth crusaders like Debito. Why do you think I should live my life any other way, and why do you think my life has even the slightest bit of relevance to this article? Before responding to that, please keep in mind that I was not the one who included the information in the first place. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 05:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

First off I would like to thank you for judging my information in a factual manner. Keep in mind that I can't find a decent article on hotel discrimination for the time being. Every article about it seems to contain different information.

Here it says 27% of all hotels won't accept foriegners: http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20100406ad.html

This link say 15% won't accept foriengers: http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/01/shocking-levels-of-racism-in-japanese.html

Of course I don't trust the above links because I believe more research should be done about hotel discrimination to clearify everything. However those two above links as unresearched as they make seem sound better than the 94% study that must have been falsified. Nevertheless I strongly believe that there should be more research on hotel discrimination.

Second of all, I would like to apologize for comparing you to Debito. It really nice to you see a researcher that doesn't believe everything he finds online, in books, or in documenterys.

Third, please understand that the very reason I recommended filing a lawsuit against the hotels that discriminated wasn't to recommend making moeny. It's to deliver a message to society and stand up for yourself. Not in the same way Debito does of course. However whether or not you do is up to you. I can't simply make you. Of course if you do by any chance in the future take action doing so will assist in changing society. How it does depends on how you stund up for your self.

As for the claims that the Japanese media verbally bashed the anti-discrimination bill how long would should we wait untill a referance is added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 21:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what that "94%" means. It does not say that 94% of apartments or landlords turn down foreigners. It says that 94% of foreigners have been turned down for an apartment at some point. So, for example, if each foreigner went apartment hunting and checked out 10 places, and one in ten of those places turned down foreigners, that would mean 10% turn down foreigners. It would also mean that 100% of foreigners had been turned down at some point. That 94% figure falls into that second category. What percent of apartments turn down foreigners? I don't know. But that 94% of foreigners have been turned down at some point doesn't surprise me in the least (and I hope you understand now).

Suing may be the obvious thing to an American to do, but in Japan it's an extreme measure. Learning that is a part of learning Japanese culture. A lawsuit could quite likely be counterproductive. If you're chasing the $$$, then I guess it's a route to take. If you're trying to get people to open their minds and accept foreigners, it'll more likely backfire. Debito won $30,000 (I think) in the onsen case, but by his own admission they still don't accept foreigners. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I still think the 94% link is misleading and untrustworthy. Beside how many foriegners visit more than one or two apartments. I doubt your explaination makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 14:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Um...I don't want ot be rude or anything, but such a statement makes me think that you've never been apartment hunting before.

In Japan, you find an apartment through a real estate agency, not (normally) through the landlord directly (unless you've got connections). The real estate agency will normally pick out three or four places, and personally drive you to see them. If none of them are to your liking, they'll pick out three or four more, and so on. When I was apartment hunting, I would typically go to two to four real estate agents and check out the apartment listings (there are a bunch of free magazines for that) before settling on a place. I know I put a lot more effort into it than most people, but the idea of picking the first or second apartment I came across sounds absolutely astounding to me. I doubt there are many people---in any country---who could make a choice after seeing only one or two places. Basically, if you're argument against the number is that foreigners wouldn't check out "more than one or two apartments"...well, you're flat-out wrong. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Now I see what you mean. It all makes sense now. I just feel that the 94% survay might influance people to create misunderstandings and exaggrations. There has to be a better referance online somewhere that's easy to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 22:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you can find something, please add it. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 03:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, i've yet to find something to replace that 94% poll, but no referance has been added toward the government policy section that mentions about the media critisizing the anti-dicscrimination bill. That being said after mouths of waiting for a referance i'm deleting it. If any of you can find proof that it should remain feel free to change it back with an included referance, but for now it's existance is irrelivant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 14:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)