Kokusu said:
In a way, this comment is passively racist as well. Even though this person has met Japanese people in person as individuals (and thus, I assume, understands that the Japanese people are comprised of individuals just as any other culture is comprised of individuals), it was very easy for this person to add a 'but' and start referring to the Japanese broadly as 'they' and 'them'. This then makes the argument that the Japanese in general have a problem of being racist rather than there are individuals in Japan who have the problem of being racist. Do I think this person is racist. No. Just victim to the same type of easy thinking we all are, including the Japanese and including me, the type of thinking that makes it easy to lump people of another into groups rather than view them as individuals.
If you are saying that generalising (=talking about of the majority of people one has met in a particular ethnic group) is a kind of racist behaviour, I just cannot agree. Discussion is impossible without generalisations, especially when it comes to differences between cultures or national groups. It's important to understand that a generalisation never means
all people in that group, but
the trend, i.e. what is the most usual, the norm rather than the exception. If in a group of 100 people 30 think similarily, and every single of the other 700 have a unique way of thinking, then this 30% defines the trend, even if it is not even a majority. That is how it is possible to compare cultures, societies, education system, national charaters, etc. If we needed 100% or even 90% of people sharing a common trait, discussion would be very limited, and in most cases impossible.
Why not say, "So some people in Japan . . . " or "So some Japanese . . . "?
For me, I understand it as implied that when it is not explicitly written "all", it is the trend (most representative segment, even if only 30%) or majority (50% or more). I cannot imagine how you can deal with most situations in daily life if everytime a "most" is ommited, you understand it as "all". It just doesn't make sense.
Are only the Japanese suspicious of foreigners, or do we see this occur frequently in other cultures as well?
Again, I can't understand why you say that. Why would you assume that ONLY the Japanese are "suspicious of foreigners" when nobody said that ? The world is composed of thousands of cultures and hundreds of countries. This forum is composed of members from many different cultures and countries, with different experiences and standards. I could very well say that for me 'the Japanese are consumerist'; yet it doesn't mean that I find ONLY the Japanese to be consumerist. I also find Americans to be so, and maybe even more than the Japanese. But compared to ME and the environment in which I grew up, it is how I see them. Everything is relative and should be understood in relation with the speaker's culture/country of origin and own experience. And again, even if I say "the Japanese are consumerists" (in my eyes), I could always find thousands of exceptions. It doesn't matter as the trend is still true to me. Do you know the proverb "the exception confirms the rule" ?
kokusu said:
It is a difficult thing to not peculiarize people of a culture different than one's own. Also, there are many Japanese who are racist and xenophobic.
But there are many good Japanese as well who are sensitive to people of different cultures. Also, there are Koreans, Chinese, Americans . . . you name it! . . . who are racist and xenophobic in exactly the same way they believe the Japanese to be! So this racism thing we are talking about . . . well, it seems to be a problem that people from all cultures must struggle with, not just the Japanese.
With this kind of thinking, cultural comparisons are impossible. If it is true that you can find racists in every country, there proportion differs, and the way racism is expressed and the people to whom it is directed differ even more. It is undeniable that compared to most Western countries, the Japanese tend not to understand very well what the word "racism" mean and associate it only with violent behaviour. It is also fairly clear to anyone who has raised this subjects with numerous Japanese that their is a constancy with which the majoriy of them have a poor image of Chinese people, and very often hold degrading, if not racistic views about them. Yet it is also obvious that very few contemporary Japanese would commit violence toward people upon whom they look down in such racist way.
kokusu said:
Actually, there is. 人種的差別 (jin-shu-teki-sa-betsu).
This word only means "racial discrimination". I am pretty sure you got it from checking in a dictionary, because my electronic dictionary has this word too (including 2 others), but has a further long explanation about the meaning of the term in English, with examples :
"racismとは人種的優越感・憎悪感・誤解・無知などに基づいた他人種への不当な差別のことで、具体的な言語表現としては、Chink(=Chinese), Jap (=Japanese), nigger (=negro), Paki (=Pakistani)などの語に表れる。現在、英米では人種差別は法的に禁止されている。"
Translation : "racism is injust discrimination toward a different kind of people, based on a racial sense of superiority, feeling of hatred, misunderstanding, ignorance, etc., and are expressed with specific words such as Chink(=Chinese), Jap (=Japanese), nigger (=negro), Paki (=Pakistani), etc. At present, racial discrimination is prohibited by law in the UK and USA."
I think this speaks for itself. The very fact that they have to explain that much (and think that "negro" is the normal expression for "Black" !), and explain that racism is prohibited by law in the UK and US, show us how ignorant normal Japanese are about what racism is. I remember showing this explanation in my dictionary to a few Japanese, and their reaction was the stereotypical "eeh" of surprise mixed with interest, showing that they had no idea such a thing existed.
Many Japanese with whom I have discussed about racism just uses the English word when speaking Japanese, as there is no real equivalent.
kokusu said:
人種的差別 (jin-shu-teki-sa-betsu) is, as far as I am aware, a noun and translates as 'racial discrimination' which is what I understand racism to be.
There is a big difference between racism and racial discrimination. Racism can be graded like this :
1) in the mind only (just an unexpressed opinion)
2) in expression (e.g. calling a Black a "nigger", or saying "these Chinese are so inferior to us")
3) involving indirect actions (e.g. not recruiting someone because of their race)
4) involving direct, non-violent actions (e.g. refusing entry to someone based on their race, or the police assuming people of different races are more suspect)
5) involving direct, violent actions (e.g. beating up, killing...)
You may be right that (1) is very common the world over, but I have found that (2) is more common in Japan than in the West because the Japanese don't think it's wrong, and although (5) is very rare in Japan, (3) and (4) are quite common. I admit that they can also be common in the West, but at least their are laws prohibiting such behaviour, and not really in Japan. What's more, Japanese racism has the particularity to be directed at all foreigners regardless of race, nationality, education or wealth - and even sometimes at Japanese born and raised abroad. I don't know any other developed country where such a situation of "universal racism" (at least "n mind", and often in non-violent acts too) prevails.
Racism in the West is usually directed at economic immigrants that cause troubles, or one particular race (usually Black people). There is almost no racism between Caucasian people, nowadays (like there was 100 years ago, eventually leading to WWI). Furthermore, almost all Westerners know that racism, even non-violent one, is somewhat taboo, while the Japanese think it's ok if no one gets hurt. That is a radically different approach to the problem.