Every one I’ve ever talked with about Japan’s racial policies in real life agree that it’s racist. Every one I know who has lived in Japan say that it’s very difficult for anyone who is different from the accepted Japanese norm. No one thinks this is a good thing.
But Japan is not my country. I don’t live there. I don’t have any influence on its policies. That’s why I don’t spend my time criticizing Japan’s policies.
It is always more important to keep your own country in line than someone else’s country.
I don’t see the need. There’s no systematic discrimination aimed at “white guys”, and there’s no shared economic interest of “white guys” as “white guys”. To the extent that “white guys” vote based on their identity as “white guys”, it’s to elect people who will use the power of the state to hold down minorities & women, and praise “white guys” as the “real Americans” and “forgotten” and whatnot. I’m not a fan of those kinds of politicians, so I stand opposed.
Well, that’s an example of identity politics. In what way is it a bad thing?
My point is that it’s not a thing within the usual class of perpetually outraged social justice warrior type. Sure, it gets commented on sometimes, but I don’t see huge social media campaigns or protest marches to force the Japanese to open their country up to wider ethnic diversity.
I don’t speak or read Japanese, nor have I been there – I wouldn’t presume to know a whole lot about the local political movements and attitudes. The vast majority of political activists of any stripe focus on their own countries, so even if there were lots of Japanese “social justice warrior types”, you probably wouldn’t know about it.
I was referring to folks in first world Western countries who like to find things to be offended about. Come on, that should be taken as read and I really shouldn’t have to clarify that point.
First world liberals tend to be much more concerned about issues in their own countries than others’, as I said. So it’s no surprise that Japan isn’t a focus.
People tend to be much more concerned about issues in their own countries than others’. Liberals, despite what certain people appear to think, are people.
Not really because they go looking for things to be offended about in their own country. They carry on an on about “privilege” and “cultural appropriation” and so forth and generally do all that sort of stuff PC Principal caricatures in South Park - yet they’re strangely silent on places like Japan. One can only surmise it’s because Japan is Asian and it’s racist to criticise people who aren’t white (at least in the progressive mindset).
Let me stress I’m not offering any commentary on Japanese culture etc here - it’s their country and I don’t live there - but just pointing out that if Australia (for example) said “You know what? We’re going to re-institute the White Australia Policy” then there would be Serious Consequences, both socially, politically and probably at an international legal level.
Japan appears to have a Japanese Japan Policy and the social justice brigade appear to just shrug and say “Oh well”.
No, it’s because they/we are focusing on their/our own countries. You’d have to ask Japanese liberals what the liberal position on these issues is in Japan.
For what it’s worth, I’ve read plenty of criticism of Japanese xenophobia, and its permanent underclass of resident aliens. Google “Korean minority Japan” and you’ll find years’ worth of reading material on the subject, written by Westerners.
You seem to have made one assumption here, and then made another assumption based on it, and then go on to make yet another assumption based on that… You haven’t actually refuted my point, just said, “No, because I’m right.”
One can’t “only surmise” your suggested option when you’re responding to my post which suggests another, and when** iiandyiiii **had already suggested the other alternative of “people are generally more concerned about what happens in their own countries”. Other things have been surmised in this very thread on this very page. Here, I’ll give you more alternatives; people generally aren’t comfortable or confident in making accusations about people or places they don’t know much about. Sources for problematic issues (or lack of the same) from other countries may be in languages that people don’t know, making it harder for them to discover direct evidence. Societal differences between different countries may mean that what results from policies or behaviour in one place is different in another even if the base ideas are the same.
Why jump right to - and* only* to - “The only explanation is they think criticising non-white people is racist”?
You seem to be saying Japan is racist, but you don’t care, because you don’t live there. It seems like a strange policy to me. I don’t know where you live, but if you lived in, say, Ireland, would you care if the UK was racist? Or the USA?
I disagree that crime is immaterial. Aside from the consequences to individuals, it also destroys countries. Sudan, for example, or Rwanda. Columbia and Venezuela. South Africa’s crime rate climbs while its economy crumbles. When the people aren’t safe, the economy doesn’t work right.
None? Anecdotally, there are plenty of examples of white guys not getting hired, or promoted or admitted because they’re white guys. There are any number of lawsuits over affirmative action, including Supreme Court cases.
According to UC-Berkeley, the 2016 Fall class was 24% white compared to 42% Asian, although Asians make up less than 15% of the population of California, and less than 5% of the nation as a whole.
(Interestingly, Berkeley doesn’t count whites as “underrepresented minorities”, although they’re both underrepresented, and a minority - only about 38% of California is white non-Hispanic.)
What do you consider "systemic discrimination? What accounts for the underrepresentation of white men at UC-Berkeley and other schools, if not systemic discrimination?
Why not? Or to put it differently, if there’s a “shared economic interest” among other demographics, why not that one?
It sounds like you’re saying that identity politics - when it comes to white guys - is racism - and/or sexism. But it’s not racist or sexist when other groups do it. Why?
Actually, I think our most recent election is a product of identity politics. And it resulted in the nomination of two of the most disliked candidates in history, and the election of Donald Trump.
I would argue that’s a bad thing, from beginning to end.