- 8 Mar 2005
- 2,139
- 89
I've often wondered to what extent a country has any responsibility to both openness, through trade, and a progressive if not measured immigration system that welcomes all races on the basis of their ability to contribute to society.
When you read information about immigration programs world wide, countries like Myanmar have a more open an active program for immigration than Japan does. Japan does not persay have ANY form of immigration or migrant program whatsoever, all this despite their being a population decline and a looming labour crisis.
Japan in the past has had a mostly closed society towards trade and immigration. In two noteable cases it was opened by force of diplomacy or through outright force of what the Japanese called gunboat diplomacy. Both in the case of the reaction to Japanese imports and agressive protectionism in the 1990s, and the historical incident of the arival of Admiral Perry.
Before this, in order to assert it's will against immigrants, even those by happenstance through shipwreck, Japan murdered those people unfortunate enough to become shipwrecked on their islands, & crucified the last members of Christians on bluffs above the shore. Those who were allowed rights to trade, notably the Dutch, were limited to special prison-like enclaves.
Part One: here
Part Two: here.
Those immigrants able to live in work in Japan are permitted to do so on the condition that they give up their own ethnicity, names, history, in order to become part of the so-called racially homogenous Japanese society. On the one side, Japan makes individuals seeking inclusion into Japanese society deny their own ethnicities & histories, while at the same time, institutionalizing an ideal that foreign residents are not only dangerous but unwelcome, leaving them permanently excluded or recognized as members of such a society.
Last, Japan does not have a very good record where racism is concerned. At best Japan is considered to be passive racists -Lie, John "Multi-Ethnic Japan". It is racism I think that exists due to ignorance of things like "Little Black Sambo"... Take such a statement by a regional politician Kokubo Masao,
Philosopher Allan Bloom made the statement
I feel lastly that the caucasian foreigner may be afforded a limited but most favourable acceptance, at the expense of any real long term acceptance... certainly along with Europe, the best acceptance of all the non-Asian foreigners though at the very least. Where a European or American caucasian immigrant may be looked upon favourably initially by limited contact, for certain his or her inclusion in any area or neighbourhood will be looked upon with suspicion, due to the glaring fact that he or she is not in any way, Asian.
My question is this? What actual responsibilities to racism-awareness, human rights, immigration reform, awareness of inevitable heterogeneity, does Japan actually have? What will they ever actually address?
I don't feel like Japan will ever change. They act at times the same way they have acted for hundreds upon hundreds of years of history. I don't suppose that everyone thinks this way, that everyone shares the same opinion, but in my limited experience, I have found that even those I have known through a random sampling have ideas about races and the Japanese race in particular that seem to be the products of just such an extended isolation and institutionalized racism.
I don't see a very bright future for Japan, whereas race relations go. Japan may always have a population of non-Japanese, what John Lie referred to as (and I like this term) "non-Japanese Japanese", but I fear that their position in society will always be abject & abased by the government of Japan; a government who set the tone of racism & furthermore do not ever make actions to make outsiders believe the contrary.
When you read information about immigration programs world wide, countries like Myanmar have a more open an active program for immigration than Japan does. Japan does not persay have ANY form of immigration or migrant program whatsoever, all this despite their being a population decline and a looming labour crisis.
Japan in the past has had a mostly closed society towards trade and immigration. In two noteable cases it was opened by force of diplomacy or through outright force of what the Japanese called gunboat diplomacy. Both in the case of the reaction to Japanese imports and agressive protectionism in the 1990s, and the historical incident of the arival of Admiral Perry.
Before this, in order to assert it's will against immigrants, even those by happenstance through shipwreck, Japan murdered those people unfortunate enough to become shipwrecked on their islands, & crucified the last members of Christians on bluffs above the shore. Those who were allowed rights to trade, notably the Dutch, were limited to special prison-like enclaves.
Japan has also, a somewhat poor history with asylum seekers, it is a country actually at odds with Amnesty International for the protection of asylum seekers.In 1596, the captain of a Spanish galleon crashed in Shikoku, only to have his ship impounded. He boasted that with the increased numbers of Christians, he could oust the shogun. To discourage such threats, Hideyoshi lost no time in marching the captain around the country in disgrace. Later, he would crucify 26, Christian Franciscans and a few Japanese, in Nagasaki City as a further deterrent.
Despite having ratified the 1951 Convention on Refugees in 1981, Japan accepts relatively few refugees compared with other countries. The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) reports Japan received 3,544 applications for refugee status between 1982 and 2004 but granted only 330 requests. In 2004 Japan accepted 15 persons as refugees, while the UK accepted 12,925 and the US 21,148. Low numbers aside, there are also a number of problems in Japan's refugee recognition procedures that pose threats to asylum seekers' personal well being. For example, during the application process asylum seekers are often held in detention centres where many suffer mentally and physically from both fear of deportation and poor conditions. Between 2001 and 2002, several ethnic Hazara Afghani asylum seekers detained in these centres attempted suicide. Responding to criticism of its harsh refugee recognition procedure, the Japanese government amended its Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (ICRRA) in 2004 for the first time in 23 years and the amended measures have been in force since May 2005. There have been improvements, but a number of important issues were not addressed.
Part One: here
Part Two: here.
Those immigrants able to live in work in Japan are permitted to do so on the condition that they give up their own ethnicity, names, history, in order to become part of the so-called racially homogenous Japanese society. On the one side, Japan makes individuals seeking inclusion into Japanese society deny their own ethnicities & histories, while at the same time, institutionalizing an ideal that foreign residents are not only dangerous but unwelcome, leaving them permanently excluded or recognized as members of such a society.
Last, Japan does not have a very good record where racism is concerned. At best Japan is considered to be passive racists -Lie, John "Multi-Ethnic Japan". It is racism I think that exists due to ignorance of things like "Little Black Sambo"... Take such a statement by a regional politician Kokubo Masao,
These statements, are largely typical of politicians in Japan."We know in our heads that discrimination is bad, but our feelings are different... When you shake hands with someone who is completely black, you feel your hands getting black."
Philosopher Allan Bloom made the statement
[Japanese people] "seem to be racists. They consider themselves superior; they firmly resist immigration; they exclude even Koreans who have lived for generations among them."
I feel lastly that the caucasian foreigner may be afforded a limited but most favourable acceptance, at the expense of any real long term acceptance... certainly along with Europe, the best acceptance of all the non-Asian foreigners though at the very least. Where a European or American caucasian immigrant may be looked upon favourably initially by limited contact, for certain his or her inclusion in any area or neighbourhood will be looked upon with suspicion, due to the glaring fact that he or she is not in any way, Asian.
My question is this? What actual responsibilities to racism-awareness, human rights, immigration reform, awareness of inevitable heterogeneity, does Japan actually have? What will they ever actually address?
I don't feel like Japan will ever change. They act at times the same way they have acted for hundreds upon hundreds of years of history. I don't suppose that everyone thinks this way, that everyone shares the same opinion, but in my limited experience, I have found that even those I have known through a random sampling have ideas about races and the Japanese race in particular that seem to be the products of just such an extended isolation and institutionalized racism.
I don't see a very bright future for Japan, whereas race relations go. Japan may always have a population of non-Japanese, what John Lie referred to as (and I like this term) "non-Japanese Japanese", but I fear that their position in society will always be abject & abased by the government of Japan; a government who set the tone of racism & furthermore do not ever make actions to make outsiders believe the contrary.