I read Mr. Gregory Clark's February 13 rebuttal letter in the Japan
Times with great concern.  In this letter, Mr. Clark tries to defend
himself against the paper's review of Arudou Debito's "Japanese Only."
The review, which I have not read, accuses him of defending racism in
Japan.  I have read Arudou's book.

In his own defense, and in that of the sued shop and onsen owners, Mr.

"...the proprietors had suffered severe damage or loss from the
criminal actions of certain foreigners in Japan.  They had resorted to
what they saw as the only defense possible, namely to try to bar the
entry of these foreigners."

This is simply not true.  Yunohana Onsen never suffered any damage from
Russian sailors.  They banned all foreigners from their premises from
the day they first opened their doors for business.  In fact, no onsen
in Otaru ever suffered any damage from Russian sailors, but policies
banning foreigners proliferated anyway (one onsen in Wakkanai did
suffer somewhat less than 500,000 yen in damage to their premises;
apparently Mr. Clark is confusing this one with Otaru).

During the suit, Yunohana claimed that foreigners had forced them to
close the doors of "Green Sauna," their previous facility, leading them
to ban foreigners at the new place.  Their claim is quite dubious,
given that Green Sauna was a rundown business located on the second
floor of a building in a nightlife district with no parking.  Hardly a
family facility. Further, they actively courted the business of Russian
sailors.  (see "Japanese Only," pp. 30-35,114-117, 284-290).

As for the Hamamatsu jewelry store, according to court records, it,
too, had suffered no damage or theft from foreigners previous to
ejecting a customer for her race (see "Japanese Only," pp. 61-65).

So Mr. Clark's perception that these were innocent businesspeople at
the end of their ropes, reluctantly resorting to an unpleasant policy
in some last-ditch effort to survive is simply wrong.

through the courts for racial discrimination is a travesty of both
common sense and the law."

In the case of Yunohana, "dragged through the courts" is hardly a fair
representation of what took place.  The three plaintiffs in the Otaru
lawsuit worked directly with Yunohana and two other discriminatory
onsens in the city in a friendly way in an attempt to get them to
change their policies for 15 months before the lawsuit.  They also
tried working with the city to get them to urge the onsens to change
their ways, to open public hearings on the problem, etc, but were met
with little more than administrative foot-dragging.  They made a very
commendable "good faith" effort to solve the problem amicably.
Unfortunately, for the most part, Yunohana's management refused to
participate in any of this (the other two facilities did, to their
credit, and amended their policies before the lawsuit took place).
Only after more than a year of work did these men resort to a lawsuit
against Yunohana.

I can only conclude from Mr. Clark's comments that he is painfully
uninformed about the facts of the Otaru and Hamamatsu cases.  This is
quite disturbing given that he refers to them frequently in his
writings here in Japan.  May I suggest he pick up a copy of Arudou's
book?

He also adds a blast at those victims of racial discrimination who
would sue:  "To boast about one's "victories" over these proprietors is
the kind of self-aggrandizement one expects from foreigners here with
grudges and superiority complexes against the nation in which they have
chosen to live."

This comment is also troubling, and is a theme that appears in much of
his writing about this case, both in the Japan Times and in this forum:
 For some reason, Mr. Clark seems to be assuming that anybody who would
sue a Japanese business must be a Japan-hater, or a practicing a type
of cultural imperialism as they attempt to force their views upon
another nation.  This is a dangerously simplistic analysis.  A reader
of Arudou's book will walk away with, if nothing more, a clear
understanding of just how much the author and his compatriots love and
respect Japan.  They sued Yunohana for a (relatively) isolated case of
racism, and nothing more.  They did not sue Japanese culture itself.
Yet Mr. Clark takes offense at this in an almost personal way, as if
they had accused the entire nation of being racist.  It's an ironic
reaction considering that all parties involved share, if nothing more,
a deep respect for Japan.

But perhaps most disturbing, for Mr. Clark to criticize someone for
attempting to force their view on another when the view in question is
"don't discriminate based on the color of someone's skin" is a comment
certain to raise eyebrows and call into question Mr. Clark's core
beliefs as a person.  It also incorrectly implies that Japan has a
"culture" of racial discrimination.

Enlightened societies around the world realized decades ago that
discrimination based on a person's physical appearance is simply not to
be tolerated.  A merchant who opens his doors to the general public
must do just that.  Exceptions for reasons over which the person in
question has no control are not allowed in civilized society.  On this
point, the United Nations, Japan's courts, and frankly, every person I
know are in agreement.

That's why it's so shocking for a man of letters like Mr. Clark,
someone who has made laudable contributions to Japanese society over
his long career, to continue to make statements that can only be
interpreted to suggest that he believes there are situations where it's
acceptable to discriminate based on race.  And that's precisely why
there has been such an incensed debate in this forum, and why criticism
has been leveled at him from some many places.  I can only hope that he
will realize that many of his assumptions about these court cases are
incorrect, and reevaluate his position on the matter accordingly.

Scott T. Hards
Tochigi, Japan (18-year resident)

Dear Scott Hards

This debate began quite a few years ago.

As I recall it, the author of the book you mention said then on a website
called Dead Fukuzawa that he talked to the owner of the Otaru bathhouse in
question who had said he suffered 800,000 yen's worth of damage to
machinery, plus severe wall damage, at the hands of drunken seamen before
his decision to ban foreigners.

Even so, he (the book author) was insisting that he would sue if the No
Foreigners sign was not taken down.

I was, and remain, appalled at the lack of sensitivity.

But this aside, it is clear that bathhouse owners there and elsewhere were
losing Japanese customers as a result of the open house to the seamen.  In
this situation, what would you do as a proprietor?  Wait and go quietly
bankrupt as the basis of your business fell apart?

Besides,  in this situation would it not be better to go out and sue the
customers rather than the proprietor?

As I have said repeatedly, if  the anti-discriminators really were upset
about the situation, they would have done much more to find a solution
with the Russians.  I did (I speak the language and visited the Otaru
wharves).  What I saw and heard then did little to convince me that the
bathhouse owners had any other alternative.

Similarly in Hammamatsu. I checked the situaton on the ground, and it is
clear there was a shop-lifting problem, quite apart from the problem of
gawkers. Here the shop-keeper's solution seems understandable too, even if
a bit harsh.  

As I understand it, there was also a severe shop-lifting problem in
Hokkaido ports visited by Russians.  

I suggest you visit the shops in Yuuzhniyi Sakhalinsk to undersand the
extent of this problem.  Every shop, even the smallest store, has had to
stoop to draconian levels to stop the chronic shop-lifting there.  Do you
want Japanese stores to have to do the same?

I like Russians, both as a people and a civilization.  But it clear that
there has been a complete breakdown in morality in recent years, at least
among the less-educated in Far Eastern Russia.  The alcohol  problem is
out of control, with parks and other public facilities littered with empty
beer and vodka bottles.

I have tried repeatedly to point out the meaningless of the constant
'color of skin' argument. I cannot understand the refusal even to attempt
to refute my argument, which is:

There are times when proprietors, governments etc are entitled to be upset
or worried by the behaviour of people coming from certain culture groups.
Often the only criterion they can use in their efforts to keep the
offenders at bay is blanket bans based on nationality or appearance.

This is cultural, not racial, discrimination. The persistent and
simplistic resort to 'color of skin' condemnations whenever I try to make
this point suggests deep psychological unbalance on this question of race
and culture.

Since you seem more balanced and thoughtful than most of the people using
this site for posts, I would appreciate the courtesy of a reply.

I agree with you that the debate is important.

Gregory Clark

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

I agree that Russian sailors, or indeed sailors of any nationality, can
be a rough group.  I can understand businesses being careful around
them, too.  However, the  leap of thinking from a group of Russian
sailors to a man and his family (wife, two daughters) defies logic.

I have a good impression of the Japanese in general. I would be willing
to bet that very few Japanese would object to sharing their onsen with
foreigners, providing that the foreigners were aware of Japanese
bathing customs and traditions.  In fact, it has been my experience
that foreigners are more observant of Japanese bathing customs than the
Japanese themselves!  We feel a little 'under the microscope' a lot of
the time, and compensate by trying extra hard to follow Japan's
cherished social rules and standards.  In my experience, the most
ignorant bathers have been Japanese themselves!

I think most issues of "racism" actually stem from isolation and lack
of exposure, rather than from malice.  I cannot see how Mr. Arudo's
presence, or his children's presence, would adversely affect the
business of the onsen.

Businesses disriminate all the time in order to protect themselves.
Generally, though, they do so based on behavior and not on appearance.
Even so, I dont think Mr. Arudo, or any of the lawsuit plaintiffs,
resemble Russian sailors in the slightest.  Would it have been so
difficult for the onsen manager to say, "well, we are a little leery of
foreign customers since some are ignorant of Japanese customs, but
obviously you are not in that category"?  Would the customers object to
sharing a bath with him, or with you, or with me? No.  They would
object to sharing a bath with an ignoramus of whatever cultural
background.

The other issue is that of the problem spreading to other areas.
Assumptions like "foreigners are ignorant of Japan" and "foreign
customers are more trouble than they are worth" are really dangerous to
the quality of life here for all of us.

Thank you for your time and answers.

DS

Mr. Clark,

Your arguments are right on. All companies have a right to run their
businesses as they see fit and to choose or reject customers as
necessary. If a group of customers is causing problems, banning them is
only common sense. It is rather ironic that the courts decided they had
no right to interfere with the law-making business of the city of
Otaru, yet they saw no problem with forcing the bathhouse to follow
unprofitable business practices.

Dear DS: I appreciate your points, but as I said earlier, once someone has
established what they see as the valid principle of excluding foreigners,
I don't see how they can be expected to vet everyone at the door to decide
exceptions.

If some people are going to be excluded it is much easier to do so on the
basis of a blanket exclusions rather than have to face up to someone, a
drunken Russian especially, and say that that someone deserves to be
excluded.

There may have been an added factor, namely a gut dislike of someone who
was clearly bent on forcing them to make exceptions.

With shop-lifting there is a particular problem since there is no way one
can decide who is the good foreigner and who is not.

I have to admit that the situation in Sakhalin really shocked me.  The
entrances to many stores look like what one would expect at the entrance
of a bank vault, with turnstyles to check entrants, lockers in which bags
have to be put, and pug-ugly guards watching every move.  

I also have to admit that I have always been amazed by the instinctive
honesty of most Japanese when it comes to paying for goods that could
easily be 'lifted.'  It says something very important about the Japanese
value system, but as we see already with younger Japanese in the cities
that instinctive honesty (i.e. reliance on shame rather than guilt) is
already breaking down.

If bad behavour by some foreigners hastens that breakdown we are all
losers.  

The instinctiveness of the Japanese value system has some very ugly
aspects at times (and sometimes we foreigners can be victims).  But it
also has good aspects.  

But good or bad, it is their system and we should not be so anxious to
boast about our efforts to change it.

Incidentally, we Anglosaxons for a long time had an instinctive honesty
ethic similar to that of the Japanese (I remember it in my youth), but it
broke down quite easily. Some of the London stores now resemble Sakhalin.
Even guards, secret cameras etc could not stop the rot.

I realise that not all will agree with my view about the Japanese value
system . Partly because of this debate I have hurried to get Part 12 of
Life Story on the website to explain what I mean by an 'instinctive' value
system.  

This in turn adds to my belief that if we continue the debate without
insults we can arrive at some conclusions.

GC

Maybe

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

It may be much easier, but the easiness by no means justifies that
action.

...the same way there is no way one can decide who is a good japanese
and who is not.

How about the situation in stores in China? Yet, Chinese are accepted
in Japanese businesses because they are undistinguishable by
appearance.

So, is it a good idea to ban all young looking Japanese as well?

Discrimination based on race is not part of what you call "their
system". This is part of "the system" of limited number of bussines
owners. The court agreed this is not part of the Japanese value system.

That is a very good idea.

Mr. Right.

Acually, you are wrong.  Businesses do NOT have the right to accept or
reject customers as they see fit, sorry.  When you open a business, you
are inviting the public in. It is NOT a private club, or a private
home.    When you say, "a group of customers" is causing problems, you
are being way too general.  How do you define "a group of customers"?
By race? By age? By gender? By hairstyle?  The irony is that the bath
in question wanted to ban Russians only, but did not do so because
banning just Russians would be discrimination. So, they decided to ban
all foreigners "just to be fair".  I am still trying to get my head
around that logic.

IMHO, the "Japanese only" signs would not be a deterrent to drunken
Russians, who appear to be the main instigators of trouble.  First of
all, most Russian sailors can't speak English, so they would go inside
the bathhouse anyway. This would leave the counter staff to deal with
them.  A more effective sign would be "no drunks" in multiple
languages, or "no rowdy behavior".  I am confident most onsen would
rather have sober gaijin customers than drunken Japanese.

So you want bathhouse bouncers?  Who pays?

That is the whole point, which you seem determined to miss.

A very good aspect of the Japanese value system - a system that you do not
seem to have much time for - is the extraordinary honesty with which most
Japanese to date have shown in shops.

So there has not been a need to discriminate against most Japanese, though
some stores now train overhead cameras on Japanese who do appear to be
'bad.'

China is not as bad as Sakhalin.

True, there is a growing problem of shoplifting by under-privileged
Chinese, and Vietnamese, in Japan.

But it is still quite a lot less than the problem that used to exist with
Russian seamen in Hokkaido ports.  

 Already in Harajuku they have to take anti-shoplifting measures.
And the court was wrong.  It was discrimination based on assumed cultural
values, by owners who had suffered or had reason to suffer from those
cultural values.

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

Again, it is wrong to assume that race is a valid criterion to estimate
one's cultural values. The idea that one's race determines one's
culture is a racist idea. A person that believes race is a reliable
indicator of culture is a racist, even if this person beleives he is
not. The fact that the business owner WANTS to discriminate based on
culture does not change the fact that he in fact DOES discriminate
based on race.