Just came to check in here, and the place has been sanitized.  What
happened to the other discussion topics?

Cheers;

DS

Maybe the owner of this discussion group is ashamed of what he wrote
here.

Mr. Clark erased it. I had subscribed via e-mail and have all the
e-mail messages from the group, if anyone is interested.

Well, "we people" had the audacity to challenge a veteran on his
defence of state-supported soft racism in Japan, and any observer could
see he lost the debate, and so he decided to try to hide this by
deleting all the posts. That's what I think happened.

Steve, please save the posts where Mr Clark argues that citizenship is
not defined by citizenship but by race: 'A white man who has taken
Japanese citizenship and has kids born in Japan, they are still
foreigners,' I paraphrase as the posts are gone.

Anyway, this should be preserved for future study in the Museum of Late
20th Century Japologist Thinking. Those really were incredible times,
and Mr Clark clearly remembers all the words to all the old songs:

The site was not set up to be a forum for the abuse, both childish and
ugly, it has recently become.

But to answer your point.  

You may not have noticed,  but the original debate was not over racism,
soft or hard.

It was over the nature of the various discriminations in a society, of
which racism is one, and the appropriate action to take.

One of the conclusions I tried to put forward was that a person who has
suffered severe damage to his business from abusive foreigners and who
then tries to exclude all foreigners because he cannot or does not want to
check whether each foreigner is potentially abusive,  is hardly guilty of
racial discrimination. And if that is discrimination then there are many
much more serious discriminations in this world about which little is
done, by the United Nations or anyone else.  

 I have not had any response to this point or many other points put
forward. Most of what I have had is immature ranting, various kinds of
abuse, and more recently an attempt to post a piece of the typical
rightwing, Rupert Murdoch gutter press-style slander which those of us
opposed to the Vietnam War in Australia have often had to suffer, and
over which even the Murdoch press later agreed, under pressure, that it
had gone too far and would publish a rebuttal.

I still have not seen any attempt on your side to run the rebuttal, which
leaves your side even deeper in the gutter than Murdoch.  Congratulations.
*

Is this the sort of thing that you people usually do to claim 'victory?'
You should be ashamed of yourselves. You do great damage to the very
principles of tolerance which you claim to uphold.

But that aside,  when I see you out there campaigning as I have against
real examples of bureaucratic discrimination in Japan, for example the
brutal treatment of visa-overstayers or refusal to implement sensible visa
policies for Chinese students, not to mention the truly vicious other
examples in the world, such as Western and Russian racialistic military
atrocities,  I will know that you are for real.  

Most of you find it easier to aim for the 'soft' targets who cannot
retaliate or do any damage to your beautiful careers. More
congratulations.  

Indeed, all I have seen so far are examples of you people imposing more
foreigner abuse on unfortunates who have already suffered foreigner abuse,
and your then wallowing in Joan of Arc triumphalism over alleged
'victories.'  In the process you show a deep-seated, possibly racialistic,
dislike of a nation whose people, if not its bureaucrats,  show more
tolerance to foreigners than they deserve, and,  as some other more mature
posts have pointed out, who show more tolerance than is found in most
other nations.  

Once again congratualtions, and thanks for showing me where you really
come from.  For a while I thought you people had a genuine, even if
somewhat immature,  interest in trying to create a better world.

GC

* The article claimed I was 'embittered' because I was not made ambassador
to Japan. This is nonsense.  Apart from the question of my youth at the
time, there was a much more serious question of my having exposed
Australia's Echelon activities against Japan, and have spent the best part
of year 1975 trying to counter a rightwing bureaucratic attempt to derail
relations with Japan .  

People who want to be ambassador do not usually do that sort of thing (see
my website for further details, if you are interested, which I assume you
are not).

If your kind of people like to go along with this kind of Murdoch-style
slanderous gutter nonsense, then I really do know where you are coming
from.  

Gregory Clark
Head, Research Japan Office
S603 Ark Hills Executive Tower
1-14-5 Akasaka
Minato-ku, Tokyo
107-0052
Tel: 03-3586-4147
Fax: 03-3586-4148
www.gregoryclark.net
www.gregoryclark.net/nakadaki

PS to previous post.

.  When I see you people prepared to go the 'hard' route of joining the
small band standing in the cold outside the Shinagawa immigration 'prison'
to protest the incarceration and deportation of 13 Bangladeshis who
learned the language and who have worked long and faithfully in Japan, and
who had the guts to turn themselves in in a bid to force a bit of
commonsense and humanity into Japan's visa overstay policies, then I will
know you are for real.

But I suspect your total turnout is zero. You might get photographed by
the police and have your name blacklisted in the visa files.

You find it much easier to crow over some 'victory' over a defencelss
Otaru bathowner whom even your side admits had suffered serious damage
from abusive foreigners.  

You make me sick.

Gregory Clark
Head, Research Japan Office
S603 Ark Hills Executive Tower
1-14-5 Akasaka
Minato-ku, Tokyo
107-0052
Tel: 03-3586-4147
Fax: 03-3586-4148
www.gregoryclark.net
www.gregoryclark.net/nakadaki

Mr. Clark;

Thank you for your honesty. Here is how I see it. You said;

"a per­son who has suffered severe damage to his business from abusive
foreigne­rs and who then tries to exclude all foreigners because he
cannot or do­es not want to check whether each foreigner is
potentially abusive,  is har­dly guilty of racial dicrimination."

I dont recall the Otaru onsen in question as having suffered "severe
damage" to his business. He heard rumors from others only.  The key is
the second sentence, that he doesnt want to check whether each
foreigner is potentially abusive. That is PRECISELY what he should do.
It is his responsiblity as a business owner, who opens his doors to the
public.  Those customers of whatever physical characteristic that cant
or dont appear capable of following the rules, he is free to refuse
service. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out.  As a person
used to dealing with the public, the owner surely has some insight into
the human condition and ability to judge who is and is not potentially
harmful.He is taking a short cut, and it is wrong.  He is being lazy
BECAUSE he can get away with it.

Imagine if I opened a restaurant and said, "long haired people cause
trouble, so I wont allow ANY long haired people inside".  Nonsense,
right?

As to other abuses in Japan and elsewhere, you are absolutely right.
They are serious, and deserve attention.  Nobody disputes that.  For me
and others in my situation, we are approaching the situation in an
admittedly selfish manner. I want to change things for the benefit of
me and my family first.  No question.

I dont think it is a question of taking sides.  Just of priorities.
Once Japan officially recognizes and legislates about her international
responsibilities, then other issues may be easier to tackle.

However, YOU in turn are doing your 'side' little good by using
language that is frankly shocking coming from a man of your age,
experience, education, and public stature.  Bitter comments like "you
make me sick", "your kind of people", "immature ranting", "gutter press
style slander", "wallowing in Joan of Arc triumphalism".....  do they
really have a place in this kind of forum?  I dont think so.

Thank you for setting up this group and allowing others the chance to
see inside your thought process.

DS

Dear DS. Thank you for the measured tone of your post. It is a change from
some of the others.

If I use bad language sometimes it is because I sometimes get tired and
emotional when I have to respond to far worse treatment from others (how
would you like to be called an apologist for Japanese racism simply
because you are trying to debate with others the nature of the Japanese
value system and just what is involved in so-called racial discrimination,
or have Murdoch-gutter press defamations thrown at you).  

Some of your friends seem to be able to hand it out. But they do not like
to take it.

As for the question you raise, when the Otaru bathhouse problem was first
raised quite a few years back one of the key moralists admitted quite
happily that the bathhouse in question had suffered 800,000 yen's worth of
damage when a drunken Russian sailor started smashing walls and machinery.

If that had happened to me, I would have done a lot more than ban
foreingers.  As for checking all foreigners at the door to see whether
they are potentially violent (there was also another more personal problem
which would involve even more difficult checking) I think you are being
somewhat unrealistic.

As I mentioned earlier,  you would face a problem that even Roppongi bars
find difficult to deal with.  

Oh, and by the way, Singapore used to refuse entry to long-haired people.
And Singapore, like it or not, is very much a non-nonsense society.

Gregory Clark
Head, Research Japan Office
S603 Ark Hills Executive Tower
1-14-5 Akasaka
Minato-ku, Tokyo
107-0052
Tel: 03-3586-4147
Fax: 03-3586-4148
www.gregoryclark.net
www.gregoryclark.net/nakadaki

Hello again;

"As for the question you raise, when the Otaru bathhouse prob­lem was
first
raised quite a few years back one of the key moralists admit­ted quite

happily that the bathhouse in question had suffered 800,000 ­yen's
worth of
damage when a drunken Russian sailor started smashing walls ­and
machinery."

I would like to know a source for this information- it is the first
time for me to see it.  Previously, the worst that was said was that
Russians were noisy, drunk, and sometimes didnt rinse their bodies
before entering the bath.  Who said this, and when?

"If that had happened to me, I would have done a lot more tha­n ban
foreingers.  As for checking all foreigners at the door to s­ee
whether
they are potentially violent (there was also another more pe­rsonal
problem
which would involve even more difficult checking) I think yo­u are
being
somewhat unrealistic. "

What would you have done precisely?  As to checking all foreigners at
the door, I think the business needs to check all CUSTOMERS at the
door.  I am sure they wouldnt let rowdy drunk Japanese into their
facility. Same with rowdy drunk foreigners.  The "more personal
problem" you are intimating was, I think, a rumour that foreigners
carried communicable diseases into the onsen. Not true, never
substantiated beyond the rumour phase.

I dont see the comparison between Roppongi nightclubs and public baths.
They are different facilities, catering to different clientele, for
different purposes.  Plus, baths are seen as more of a necessity of
life, particularly in rural areas.  Not too many families with children
in tow try to enter Roppongi bars.

The whole situation is ironic to me.  A non-Japanese person who looks
"Japanese" can enter a facility, yet a Japanese who doesnt fit the
stereotypical mold of "Japaneseness" is refused.  Again, the issue of
non "pure blooded" people comes into play.  What of the children?  What
of your children, my son, Mr. Debito's daughters?  The Korean and
Chinese minority groups who live in Japan, were born here, yet are
technically not 'Japanese'?

I agree it has become a tempest in a teapot, but the point is to set a
legal precedent, the 'thin edge of the wedge'.  After that, other
problems can be tackled more easily.

DS

Mr. Clark, with all due respect, when I originally posted to this
forum, I only meant to start an honest and genuine debate on what you
had written in the article. You started in on the insults almost
immediately, saying that I was "from another planet" and saying, "You
really are that dumb." I don't think that kind of language is
appropriate, especially for a man of your experience and position. I
really should have just ended it and walked away there, but some of the
comments you continued to make, I felt, were so insulting and
outlandish to others that I felt I had to speak out. If I were to do it
over again, I probably would have just stopped writing after the first
insult and left it at that, for it just escalated from there.

As far calling you an apologist, I am sorry if that offended you, but I
as well as others do think it is an accurate term. You are defending
the bath owner's right to refuse entry based on race. I know you've
made the argument that it was not based on race but on culture, and
again, I'm sorry, but I just can't see it any other way. People were
refused entry based on their racial/ethnic characteristics. I
understand where many of the bath owners were coming from, but I still
don't think it is right for a society to allow racial discrimination in
public places. I know you have made the argument that it is not racial
discrimination, but I honestly don't see how it can be interpreted as
anything else. I really do believe that you're apologizing for racial
discrimination. It's not meant as a personal attack to you. You claim
it is cultural differences, but I really think that is just using
cultural canards to make excuses for the fact that someone is being
denied to a public establishment based on their race or ethnic
characteristics. Comparing this to denying someone due to tatoos, long
hair, or whatever else is just not logical. You have said that these
are equivalent, and I'm sorry, but I simply don't agree at all. I'm
sorry if that offends you, but in all fairness, I never called you
"dumb" or any of the other very serious names you called me and others.
I don't want to get back into the "you called me this, so I called you
that" argument. However, if you want others to stop calling you an
apologist, I would suggest that you stop apologizing for racial
discrimination where it exists here in Japan. That doesn't mean that we
can't empathize with business owners who have suffered damage. This is
documented and real. But I do think that there are better and more
civilized ways of dealing with the issue rather than banning an entire
group of people based on the fact that they are of a certain race. I
know you disagree on this, as do some of my friends and colleagues, and
I appreciate that. You've made the case that racial discrimination is
sometimes necessary in order for a society to function, and I have laid
out my case as to why I disagree. We'll just have to agree to disagree
on that one. However, if you continue to make those kinds of arguments,
then it is only logical that others will refer to you -- and in my
humble opinion, righly so -- an apologist. Whether it is part of the
Japanese value system or not can be debated, but again, if Japan didn't
want to commit to eliminating it, then they should not have signed the
UN agreement to do so. I honestly don't see any way around that.

I would also appreciate it if you would not try to characterize us as
Japan-haters or having some kind of belief that Japanese are inborn
racists. I like Japan very much and have found a great majority of the
Japanese people to be caring, kind, honest, and generous people. I also
don't believe that Japan is anything close to that of Alabama in the
1950s or 60s or South Africa in the 1970s or 80s, and to make a
comparison to that is simply not based on any sort of reality. Where I
do see parallels is with the movement to end racial discrimination in
public places (I know you have made your point that you believe it is
not racial discrimination, but I am going by a third-party definition
provided by the UN and agreed to by Japan, but again, we'll have to
agree to disagree on that). In the U.S. civil rights movement, as we've
discussed before, there were sit-ins where blacks would sit at lunch
counters designated for whites only and demand service. Many were
critical of them because they weren't interested as much in lunch as
they were in making a political protest. Many were critical of King
because they said that he was trying to change an entire culture, going
after the small stuff, trying to push too far too fast. I would read
the "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" where he addresses this criticism
-- it is a beautiful piece of writing.

You have also criticized the effort to eliminate racial discrimination
in bathhouses because there are many other, more serious, cases of
racism and racial discrimination. I couldn't agree with you more. I
think you are doing great work by protesting Japan's policies on
immigration and with regard to the case of the Pakinstanis that you
mentioned before. Let me me the first here to publicy applaud you.
However, I don't think that since there are bigger fish to fry, that we
shouldn't worry about the lesser fish. I think we can do both. Again,
back to the example of the sit-ins, it was just a lunch counter --
after all, blacks were being lynched, churches were being bombed. These
were much more serious than getting lunch at Woolworths. But King made
the argument that this was just as important, as it was a very clear
and visible signal that blacks were lesser human beings, that racial
discrimination was acceptable, and that it contributed to the culture
of violence that was happening. If you think of someone as less than a
full human being, you are more likely to justify violence against that
person. You have claimed that the bathhouse cases are contributing to
the rising nationalism in Japan. I actually believe that the Japanese
government allowing racial discrimination in public places to continue
is more a cause of this than the fact that others are working to end
it. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one too. However, for the
sake of argument, let's say that some nationalist organizations used
the onsen cases as a call-to-arms for nationlist activity. I still
would not argue that cases should be dropped. If they criticized your
campaign to change immigration policy, I would also not argue that your
campaign should be dropped. Your quest to do the right thing should not
be dictated by nationalist or reactionary groups. For me, it's a
blame-the-victim mentality. You have said that if you're not out there
protesting all of the wrongs of society, then you shoul