Recently a very popular story in Japan was that of cardboard secretly mixed in with minced meat and then put into dumplings. The story involved a pretty tiny outfit probably only catering to local people. Not only this, but this happened in China not Japan.

Read the rest of this entry »

Japan Probe has put up a video of a news segment about a Tokyo prison. The segment claims that the foreign population at this prison in increasing to the point of becoming problematic, however a graph given in the program shows this clearly to be false; link.

Talk about foreign fear mongers.

Debito has a thought provoking post about J MSDF demoting military officers with NJ spouses.

Debito states:

Imagine the uproar that would ensue in the US if the US military or State Department (with their high numbers of international spouses) were to engage in these sorts of practices–treating their employees as untrustworthy because they married foreigners, naturally all suspectable as spies!

I agree with the thrust of Debito’s argument, but I think he might be a little off in specifics.

Read the rest of this entry »

Great reporting today at Tokyo Tsure Zure Gusa about a police officer randomly checking foreign looking people for their alien registration cards. Check it out!Clearly the officer was well out of bounds. Debito has an excellent page discussing the illegality of this here.Oh, and while at Tokyo Tsure Zure Gusa, you might also want to check these great entries as well:

• Gaijin
• Enough with the “half” already!

There’s a great article on-line about Lee Soo Im:

Koreans’ struggle casts fresh light on Japanese immigration debate

Here are few select quotes:

A third-generation ethnic Korean, Lee was born in 1953 in Osaka Prefecture. Like hundreds of thousands of their compatriots, Lee’s grandparents emigrated to Japan in 1921 after losing their farmlands following Japan’s colonization of Korea in 1910.

So due to the colonization they lost what they had but were given a chance to work in Japan.

Her maternal grandfather had a job in Tokyo, but never returned after the massive 1923 Kanto Earthquake. Through various contacts, the family learned that he was among about 6,000 Koreans killed by vigilantes acting on rumors that Koreans were planning a riot.

How tragic. Information on the massacre of 6000 Koreans can be found here:

The Great Kanto Earthquake Massacre
Behind the Accounts of the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923

For a few years after 1945, Koreans in Japan were still considered Japanese citizens. But their citizenship was revoked abruptly in 1952 as Japan regained independence that year.

So while Japan was still under the occupation, Koreans were able to maintain their citizenship? Clearly given the time frame the Korean War must have complicated the entire situation.

While Japan’s ratification of the 1982 refugee recognition treaty, which barred nationality-based discrimination, improved the situation to some extent, unspoken discrimination in jobs, bank loans, housing and marriages persisted.

What exactly does this mean? So by applying this treaty, gaikokusekijin were able to get more rights for themselves? Did this apply strictly those with a special residence status? If so, why?

Back in Japan, Lee decided to apply for Japanese citizenship to safeguard her family’s visa status. But the immigration office was not convinced that she would become the ”head of a family” under Japan’s quintessentially paternal family registry system.  ”They didn’t even give me an application form,” Lee said. . .  Regaining her confidence, Lee went back to the immigration office in 1999 to apply for citizenship. The office was initially reluctant, but gave in after she threatened legal action, Lee said.

Wow. She told them to give her citizenship or face legal action. Incredible. Way to go!

 Lee became a Japanese citizen in 2002. Unlike most Koreans who naturalize, however, she decided to retain her Korean name, a decision questioned by an official in the process.

Good for her!

Lee, who recently co-edited ”Japan’s Diversity Dilemmas: Ethnicity, Citizenship, and Education” to highlight issues surrounding the country’s immigrant population, says there are no such thing as pure Japanese. A homogenous Japan is a myth built upon foreigners forced to live ”invisibly,” she says.

Right on! I have the book above in PDF format, but am ashamed to say I haven’t had a chance to read it yet. Looking forward to it now!

While the Japanese perception toward Koreans got a lift in recent years thanks largely to the Korean pop culture, there is a backlash by nationalists, in addition to a move to reinstate patriotic education, a trend she is particularly concerned about. Lee forecasts that the Japanese attitude toward immigrants will not change unless the situation ”really hits the bottom.” But she believes Japan can no longer expect foreigners to choose between assimilation and exclusion under the forces of globalization. ”I love Japan and fighting against the system is my way of showing patriotism to my country,” Lee said.

Let’s put that in block letters:

“I LOVE JAPAN AND FIGHTING AGAINST THE SYSTEM IS MY WAY OF SHOWING PATRIOTISM TO MY COUNTRY.” — Lee Soo Im

Make sure to read the entire article!

Lee’s classes:
Great page with a list of publications by Lee Soo Im, and information on the classes she teaches. Makes sure to check it out after you read the article!

Directory Database of Research and Development Activities: Lee Soo Im

Who’s who: Lee Soo Im (in Japanese)

Do whites have it better in Japan? Post your opinion in the comments section!

Now, I want to critique a passage from the essay, Japanese-ness, Whiteness, and the “Other” in Japan’s Internationalization, by Etsuko Fujimoto. This essay appeared in the book Transforming Communication About Culture (2002), edited by Mary Jane Collier. The passage I am citing begins on page 10.

[Before I begin, I want to note, my concerns here are, chiefly:
ONE, to defend the right of those who choose to assert themselves after having faced discrimination in Japan.
TWO, to look to the future of my children who are Japanese nationals.
THREE, to express sincere concern for my home of 13 years, Japan.]

Now to begin citing the relevant passage:

“Westerner,” “U.S. American,” and Gaijin, as Equated with “White”

The term gaijin has been cited as primary evidence of the Japanese insider-outsider mentality and unwillingness to allow non-Japanese persons into the insider’s circle (Befu, 1983; Kumagai, 1996; Woronoff, 1997) , a U.S. American writer who is married to a Japanese woman and has become a permanent resident of Japan, confirms this view of the term. Because anyone who is not Japanese is a gaijin. Aldwinkle believes that the term represents a binary view of the world.

Debito Arudou’s (formerly Dave Aldwinkle) views are on-line, in an essay entitled Is Gaijin a Racists Word, I Argue Yes. There he states the following reasons (each with elaboration):

1) It is a title that ignores too much.
2) Once a gaijin, always a gaijin, anywhere.
3) Is it discriminatory? [Arudou answers yes.]
4) Can you escape being a a gaijin? [Arudou answers no.]
5) It is a title that is defining us in ways many of us don’t like.

Fujimoto states, “Because anyone who is not Japanese is a gaijin. Aldwinkle believes that the term represents a binary view of the world.” Arudou states something similar to this in elaborating point (2) above, but I’m not at all sure it’s his main point. It is the point that Fujimoto dwells on the most.

Aldwinkle (1996) describes a number of situations in which the concept of gaijin negatively defines many non-Japanese people in ways that they do not like. For example, he remembers that his U.S. American friend was introduced by a Japanese person as gaijin, not even as an American, at an international symposium. He also recalls, from a trip to Venice, a young female traveler who told her friend to wait until some gaijin entered the picture frame so that the pictures would look more exotic. Aldwinkle argues that seeing non-Japanese persons as gaijin is racists because even if gaijin persons choose to naturalize and become Japanese citizens, they still will be treated as gaijin and not as Japanese. Thus, “once a gaijin, always a gaijin.”

This summarization doesn’t seem quite right to me, but trying to figure out exactly how would take too long. Arudou’s views are on-line, people can compare Fujimoto’s summary with Arudou’s actual statements.

Aldwinkle’s (1996) argument is well warranted; the use of the term gaijin perhaps exemplifies the binary mentality that is insensitive to individuality of international migrants and Japan’s unwillingness to expand the inner circle of who may be Japanese. The pervasive use of the term continuously reproduces monolithic representations of foreigners who have heterogeneous experiences and voices (Hedge,1998). Under this binarism, any foreigner, even a white person, is marked and gazed at as the other.

Even a white person? Even? What’s intended by this? Are we supposed to be surprised or appalled or made curious or what exactly?

Look, let me talk very straight here. I think there are prevalent attitudes in Japan, which SOME people possess, that differentiate people on the basis of skin color. For people who hold such views, the lighter your skin — the smarter, prettier, and more ethical you are percieved. Yes, that’s horribly wrong. But note, for SOME Japanese, no matter where you fall on that scale, if you are not Japanese, you are not JAPANESE, period. You are somehow ESSENTIALLY different from themselves. That’s the problem that needs to be addressed.

It’s quite possible that SOME Japanese might view themselves as inferior to whites and superior to blacks. However, I would wager such people would still feel they are Japanese in an essentialist sense, and that they feel this separates them off from others in some intangible way. This is the whole basis for Nihonjinron.

[Just for the record, let me state, there are SOME Japanese who could careless about your skin color or whether you are Japanese or not. They happen to be among some of my favorite people. In saying some Japanese view whites or others as fundamentally different, we’re talking about prevalent values that have influence of one kind or another. We aren’t talking about ALL Japanese.]

As much as the term gaijin “others” non-Japanese person, it is too simplistic to conclude that it is the only way in which Japanese-ness/non-Japanese-ness is defined.

But who made this assumption to begin with? This is the proverbial straw man.

The term [gaijin] implies white Westerners more often than it does nonwhite foreigners, and it connotes positive attitudes such as curiosity, awe, and admiration more often than it does negative attitudes (Koshiro, 1999; Russell, 1996). March’s (1992) study reveals the same signifier-signified relationship. He surveyed a total of 270 Japanese in Tokyo in 1983 and 1987 to understand the extent and nature of Japanese people’s “gaijin complex.” In the studies, 60% to 70% of the participants reported that they were apprehensive about interacting with gaijin. In examining the reasons for their apprehension, March found that the respondents were referring to Caucasian people when they thought about the reasons; they were intimidated by gaijin’s blond hair, attractive looks, and tall and well-proportioned bodies and because they felt inferior due to their own poor English and communication skills.

First of all, someone asking 270 Japanese in Tokyo some survey questions is hardly scientific. Secondly, I think it’s a fairly uncontroversial fact that gaijin originally referred to (white) westerners (at least postwar anyway). What changed was the presence of large scale migration of Asians into Japan during the 1980s. Gradually, these new workers became gaijin rodosha. That is, the term gaijin expanded to encompass these new migrants as well. While many still probably think of gaijin as being white, the term is now used for all foreigners.

Finally, I hear this over and over again, that whites are treated special in Japan. How? I really have no idea what the author is saying in this regards, but it sounds vaguely racist to me. (I know, I know, don’t shoot the messenger. She probably has a point.)

Okay, I agree that SOME in Japan tend to rank people according to the lightness of their skin color, but the real question is, how does this affect people’s lives in real terms? Is the author saying it’s easier for whites to get apartments, or to get jobs at ordinary Japanese companies? Or merely to be TV talents? Are there specific discriminations taking place that focus on people of other skin colors that don’t take place for whites? If so, what? And if there’s positive or reverse discrimination then it needs to be specified.

So what if some Japanese think being white is good in some vague, racists sense, that doesn’t automatically translate into positive discrimination and a rosy situation for everyone who is white. In fact, the situation for whites probably isn’t so good outside of English teaching. It’s quite possible to have a positive stereotype of a group of people based on their skin color, and then in a negative way discriminate against them. Good or bad, an outsider is an outsider.

I’m also concerned that the author might be insinuating that supposedly because whites are by some viewed well, that the form of racism present in Japan is western, and therefore it’s the west’s fault and not Japan’s. This would be an absolving of responsibility of those in Japan who practice racism, and it would be a misstatement of the problem. Let’s look at what else this author has to say…

In the process of Japan’s kokusaika, “white” was assumed to represent not only “U.S. American” but also “Westerners” and “gaijin” (Koshiro, 1999; Russell, 1996). Mouer and Sugimoto (1986) point out that Japan’s heavy reliance on the West and the United States as the major reference groups severely undermines Japan’s effort to be internationalized. The reliance has included uncritical adoption of the dominant U.S. racial non/representations as discussed in the previous section. In other words, these four concepts — white, U.S. American, Westerner, and gaijin — often have been imagined to be synonymous. This assumed link among different identity location manifests in a number of ways in Japan’s non/acceptance of international residents and tourists in Japan.

This does not quite sound reasonable to me. The author seems to be asserting that those in Japan use America as a benchmark, and all Americans are white, therefore whiteness must be good. Well, not all Americans are white, and so I don’t understand this reasoning process. If America is the benchmark then where’s the emphasis on multiculturalism? I’ll also note that, Mourer and Sugimoto’s 1986 book Images of Japanese Society is brilliant as far as I’m concerned, so I’d really like to see what specific passage the author has in mind.

More recent evidence of presumptions about and favoritism toward white person in Japan’s internationalization comes from an ethnography of the Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) Program (McConnell, 2000). The Japanese government began the JET Program in 1987 to promote international exchange and foreign-language learning in local governments and schools throughout Japan (Council of Local Authorities for International Relations, 2000). About 90% of the participants work as assistant language teachers (ALTs) who “team-teach” foreign-language classes with Japanese teachers, and the rest work for local governments as coordinators of international relations (CIRs). McConnell (2000) conducted a long-term field study of the JET Program to examine how contemporary Japanese society is dealing with the struggle for cultural and educational change through a program that is “the centerpiece of a top-down effort to create ‘mass internationalization’” (p.x).
McConnell’s (2000) study reveals racial favoritism and presumptions in a number of ways. For example, he found that program coordinators rarely placed nonwhite ALTs and CIRs in rural schools and local government because people were expecting white faces. Schools also preferred ALTs who spoke North American English to those who spoke other variations of English. One African-American participant, for example, shared her experience that she was repeatedly asked whether she could speak standard English. Caucasian participants from various countries also commented that they usually were assumed to be from the United States. McConnell notes that those problems with racial, language, and regional favoritisms improved as years passed, and in 1997 about 35% of CIRs were from non-English-speaking countries such as China, South Korea, and Russia. He cautions, however, that the changes should not be taken with too much optimism given that “Japan has largely defined itself in relation to the United States as the embodiment of ‘Western’ culture and perceive ‘American English’ as the most desired form of English for the foreseeable future” (p. 236).

There is obvious favoritism in the English industry towards those who fit the stereotypical view of what a westerner is suppose to be like. He or she is suppose to be blond and blue-eyed and genki. In general, credentials aren’t important. A tall, blond, blue-eyed person with a bubbly personality, a bad accent, and a degree in basket weaving might well be chosen over a dour Japanese-American with excellent English and impeccable qualifications. Obviously that’s wrong, but it’s a problem internal to the English industry. It’s not clear to me that this problem can immediately be carried over to all aspects of Japanese society. That is, aside from the English industry, I don’t see whites as having an advantage in Japan. In fact, the opposite might very well be true, in that they are at a disadvantage. Moreover, whites from non-English speaking countries have a very HARD time in Japan, precisely because they can’t teach English.

The stereotype of whites as being westerners and speaking English is primarily useful in obtaining English (conversation) jobs. It’s not really useful in any other way, and in fact, may well be a liability to people who want to do other things in Japan.

Again, back to the point I was making earlier, who is responsible for these stereotypes? I would say the media and the educational system. Again and again, I see portrayals of Asian countries in school textbooks and on TV shows as poverty stricken backwater places, and of whites as English speaking, blond, blue-eyed, genki, individualists. These ideas are not in any way imported from the west, and those responsible for building these stereotypes exist in Japan, not elsewhere. So the responsibility for changing these attitudes lies solely within Japan and not elsewhere.

International migrants in Japan may experience difficulty in living in Japanese society. As the preceding examples show, the racial hierarchy can situation the experience of nonwhite persons as qualitatively different from that of white Westerners in Japan. Such differential approaches to international migrants are most blatant when race and class intersect. For example, Japanese affluence has resulted in a labor shortage in labor-intensive factories and construction sites. Asian migrants — including Pakistanis, Thais, Chinese, Malays, Bangladeshis, and Iranians — have filled positions. Despite their growing importance and necessity to Japan’s industries, their physical presence often is considered undesirable and disruptive to the social order. A number of cases have been reported of verbal and physical abuse experienced by Asian migrants at work (Higuchi, 1998; Utsumi & Matsui, 1989).

Look. Whites at times face discrimination problems in Japan. “Asian migrants” at times face discrimination problems in Japan. Does the author want to say that “Asian migrants” have it worse than whites?

I admit that there is blatant discrimination in the English industry. When looking for an English teacher, Japan looks for someone from an industrialized country with a four year degree, who speaks English as their native language. When looking for cheap labor, Japan looks towards developing countries. Is that in and of itself discriminatory?

Hm … well … yeah, I guess THAT is. Japan could probably find very good and highly qualified teachers in India, Singapore, Thailand and many other places if it sought them out. This opens the whole English conversation versus English language can of worms. I think the government needs to be held accountable here for this type of blatant discrimination, however, I feel less sure over private schools. Anyway, this is a problem with the English industry. But does any of this translate into being able to fit in and live a normal life for whites or non-whites? Probably not.

Ultimately, let’s look at it this way, discrimination is bad, period. When whites fight discrimination in Japan, they attract attention to the issue, and this may well help “Asian migrants” who are being discriminated against as well. And vice versa.

And consider this, one big problem with discrimination in Japan is that SOME people say and do things in Japan with the stated reason that they are Japanese (not in a legal sense but in an essentialist sense). To the extent that these people would rather not do these things, but feel compelled to do them out of being JAPANESE, they are basically discriminating against themselves. I think ANY foreigner who asserts his RIGHTS in Japan is setting a good example for EVERYONE, regardless of skin color, nationality, religion, or ethnic origin. This is good for Japanese and non-Japanese.

There seems to be a misconception that rights are merely one view equal to other views, and as such, a form of ideology. This misunderstands fundamentally the difference between a discussion about rights and an ideology. We assert rights because it’s a method of objectifying DIFFERENCES and working them out. This means that while ideologies (and some religious views) are dogmatic, discussions revolving around rights are open ended and inherently fallible. RIGHTS are not a western ideology, but a methodology first hit upon in the west (as far as I know) for working out differences.

Issues of discrimination need to be framed in terms of human rights. Once a particular human right is established and accepted, the claim is universal. So, whether it is a white with an English job or an Asian migrant with a low-paying 3K job arguing for rights (or vice versa), their actions stand to help us all.

Note this also applies towards legal precedents as well. If a white English teacher sues his conversation school over some type of labor malpractice and wins, that decision will apply towards EVERYONE. And even if they lose, they’ve raised the issue for all of us.

According to Tony Laszlo, director of ISSHO Kikaku (a nonprofit organization that facilitates multiculturalism in Japan), in some local cities with growing numbers of nonwhite and non-Western immigrants, local businesses have posted signs explicitly refusing service to foreigners (Laszlo, 2000). Immigrants have begun to take actions to resist such overt discrimination. For example, Mainichi Interactive, an online Japanese newspaper, reported a recent court case of racism in which Ana Bortz, a Brazilian reporter for a Tokyo-based television station, sued a jewelry store for forcing her out of the store because she was a foreigner (”foreigner Wins,” 1999),. Because the abuse and discrimination are, for the most part, against nonwhite migrants, it is imperative that the role of hegemony in privileging or marginalizing certain difference be acknowledge (Hedge, 1998).

What specific discrimination is primarily against nonwhite migrants? We really need specifics here.

The favoritism toward white Westerners often has worked as hegemony that allowed Japan’s discriminatory approaches toward migrants to emerge along racial lines.

It’d be nice to have an example outside the English industry. The problem again is primarily that NON-Japanese have a predetermined place outside of Japanese society, even while they are in that society. The place for whites is that of a genki English teacher, who must behave as a guest. The place of “Asian migrants” is something more unpleasant, perhaps. Maybe the (racist) stereotype is that they are poor 3K workers. Okay? The problem is still one of pocketing people into predetermined roles, is it not?

Reducing the relationships between Japanese and migrants to the binary positions of insider-outsider or to Japanese-gaijin does not completely account for this difference.

The writer here seems at odds with herself. She clearly admits that whites have their place, as English teachers, and that “Asian migrants” have their place, as shall we say 3K workers (according to the stereotype). Yes, even if it’s true that the “Asian migrants” have it worse in regards to racists stereotypes, what relevance does this have to solving the problem of discrimination? Does she really think whites have it so good in Japan? My guess is most stop having it so good, the day they stop pretending to be guests.

Interrogating whiteness in Japan’s movement toward internationalization helps to uncover the disparate locations that Japan’s international migrant occupy. Similarly, it is important to examine the construction and the functions of Japanese-ness in Japan’s internationalization because the insider is not singular but rather includes multiple social formations.

The author explores this last sentiment in the rest of her essay, which I won’t post here.

[Update April 12, 2007: Debito posted an entry discussing the issues raised here, and Alex Kerr responded very positively, saying he fully supports Debito’s activities. Great! Only I still kind of wish Kerr wouldn’t use the word “gaijin” … ]

About a year and a half ago, Alex Kerr stated the following in an interview with the Japan Times:

In Dogs and Demons you argue that Japan has failed to internationalize. What do you think about the work of Debito Arudou and others to combat racial discrimination in Japan?
Well, somebody has to do it. I’m glad that there is a whistle-blower out there. But, I am doubtful whether in the long run it really helps. One would hope that he could do it another way. He’s not doing it the Japanese way. He’s being very gaijin in his openly combative attitude, and usually in Japan that approach fails.
I fear that his activities might tend to just confirm conservative Japanese in their belief that gaijin are difficult to deal with.
That said, perhaps we who live here are slow to stick our necks out when we sense an injustice, and quick to self-censor in order to get along smoothly in our communities.
To me the most interesting aspect of Arudou Debito is that, in taking on Japanese citizenship, he has brought the dialogue inside Japan. His activities reveal the fact that gaijin and their gaijin ways are now a part of the fabric of Japan’s new society. A very small part of course, but a vocal and real part.

Compare this to C. Eric Lincoln’s vivid description of a “smart nigger” in Coming Through the Fire: Surviving Race and Place in America:

The smart nigger was likely to be everything the good nigger was not. Most likely he was educated above the norm considered sufficient for colored folks; whether he got it in school or some bigger fool than he had put it into his head, he had some dangerous notions. In either case, Mr. Martin said that the smart nigger was a pain in his own ass, and everybody else’s too. He wanted too much. He wanted his street paved, and he wanted it paved because he paid taxes rather than because his wife cooked for the judge. His house was painted and well kept and he didn’t waste his money on rattletrap cars. He didn’t “owe money downtown,” or “take up” advances on his pay every Monday morning. More than likely he had “been up North,” and he had a colored newspaper come to his house in the mail. The smart nigger paid his poll taxes, and he was mighty slow, it seemed to Mr. Dubbie Gee, to answer when somebody said “Boy!” He didn’t think that the bad nigger was funny, or that the good nigger could be trusted. Clearly, every smart nigger would bear watching. “They don’t last long,” Mr. Martin said, and he “flat out had no use for them.” He said that if he were colored he’d either kick a smart nigger’s ass down off his shoulders or keep away from him. A smart nigger, he said “is a damn fool hell-bent for trouble. And mark my words, he’s gon’ find it quicker’n a catfish can suck a chicken gut off a bent pin.”

Is Alex Kerr saying Debito is a “smart nigger”?

I’d like to note that Kerr should be more specific in his comments, because is it really the case that there are no non-“gaijin” doing the things that Debito does? Is he saying that when Japanese file laws suits, this is a natural evolution of culture, but when Debito does it, it’s reinforcing the notion that “gaijin” have an “openly combative attitude”?

Is he saying the teachers who refuse to sing Kimigayo are acting like “gaijin”?

What exactly is the definitive way some one displays an “openly combative attitude”?

Moreover, what is the definitive “Japanese way”? And in what specific way is Debito not doing it?

It’s very disappointing to see some of Alex Kerr’s calibar engaging in Nihonjinron. He should know that there is nothing so destructive to Japan’s traditional local customs as Nihonjinron. Do I need to quote from his own books? Just like the centralization of construction standards begins to make all parks and all buildings look bleakly similar, the centralization of identity around the concept of “Japanese” in an essentialist sense is just as destructive to the development of a full personality.

In these days and times where the government is seeking to impose it’s own morality on the people, Kerr should be more careful in how he words himself.

If Kerr has specific criticisms of Debito, by all means, he should make them. But what he says here is far below the high quality standards he put into his own books, Lost Japan and Dogs and Demons.

What a let down.

A well-respected author and blogger, Shigenobu Tamura (田村重信), reports in his blog that last year the monthly magazine Chichi (致知) featured an article in its April issue in which Bunmei Ibuki, the MEXT Minister, gave his opinion on the Koizumi reforms and education. I’m not clear on whether this was an interview with Ibuki or opinion piece by Ibuki. However, here is my translation of Ibuki’s statements as presented to us in Mr. Tamura’s blog (see below for notes on translation):

If we take the esteemed Ainu and the zainichi people [and so on] as exceptions [i.e. EXCLUDE them], we see that fundamentally Japan is one ethnos, one ethnic ruler-ship, one language, one belief system (a gentle multifaceted belief system); in this world a rare country [a country without precedent]. This is different from an artificial country like America, which is made up of a conglomeration of ethnicities with different languages and different values; without even writing it into law, people in Japan have a tacit understanding which establishes us [as a country]. Under this special environment, our forefathers, for more than a thousand years, through trial and error, again and again, by shaving off the bad, and letting the good remain, have passed down to us, societal norms.
:
Not so long ago, we used to say the following words; ” [Even if no one else sees the bad things you do] the Sun is watching”, “Don’t [become ashamed] to show your face to the World.” Illuminated by these traditional norms, Japanese of their own accord judged their behavior. [i.e. they didn’t need laws.] Based on generations of experience, the old mercantile houses formed norms, house constitutions — house precepts, and if they strayed from that path to pursue only profit by not fulfilling their obligations to the customer or by bullying their subcontractors, then they were sternly admonished. Yet the more our country has grown wealthy and abundant, the more our spirit of reverence has grown impoverished. While well clothed and well fed [we may be], from the viewpoint of ethics and morals, you hear “So long as its not illegal, it’s not a problem” “So long as you don’t get caught, it’s okay.” Unethical business dealings and deplorable scandals have become frequent occurrences.
:
The postwar educational system has had a big influence here. Take a person who has received this post-war education that gives priority to rights not duty, that puts the private above the public, when this person reaches adulthood, when that child who has been influenced [by this education] becomes an adult, then as a result, they won’t even understand it when they are admonished by saying “[Even if no one else sees the bad things you do] the Sun is watching”, “Don’t [become ashamed] to show your face to the World.”
:
[cut]
:
In order to get back the traditional societal norms Japanese have lost, the LDP will, with the same fervor with which the postal system was reformed, strive to revise the constitution and to revise the fundamental law of education, (to make) the educational (system) … what it should be.

I think these statements speak for themselves. Japanese aren’t suppose to argue with one another or disagree because they are all suppose be the same in some essential sense. Of course, this is useful for politicians who don’t want the public to eye them too critically. But this is not what is most troubling about these statements.

Note, that Ibuki’s entire line of argument is focused on revising the Constitution of Japan and the Fundamental Law of Education. He clearly states here and in other places that these important documents need to be reformed to reflect the values of the Japanese ethnos. He has specifically said these values are not universal, but special values of the Japanese ethnos. So these values, of course, are not those of the Ainu or those of zainichi people.

Is this internationalization? Is it even Constitutionalism? Probably not.

:
:
:

Notes on the above translation:

What follows are the original Japanese quotes as presented on Mr. Tamura’s blog page followed by my translation. CAUTION: I have removed ellipses in Mr. Tamura’s quoted text which shows where cuts were made. On Mr. Tamura’s page these were marked with the Chinese character “略”. This may cause confusion if you don’t first view the text as presented on Mr. Tamura’s blog.

Criticism of my translation will be readily accepted.

1.　日本は、アイヌや在日の方などの例外はあるが、基本的に一民族、一民族支配、一言語、同一の信仰（穏やかな多信仰）で成り立つ世界でも稀有（けう）な国である。

If we take the esteemed Ainu and the zainichi people [and so on] as exceptions [i.e. EXCLUDE them], we see that fundamentally Japan is one ethnos, one ethnic ruler-ship, one language, one belief system (a gentle multifaceted belief system); in this world a rare country [a country without precedent].

2.　人工的に移民でつくられたアメリカのように、言語も価値観も異なる人々の集合体である多民族国家と異なり、日本では法に書かれざる“暗黙の了解”が比較的成立しやすかった。

This is different from an artificial country like America, which is made up of a conglomeration of ethnicities with different languages and different values; without writing it in law, people in Japan have a tacit understanding which establishes us [as a country].

3.この特別な環境下で、われわれの祖先は、千年以上もの長きにわたって試行錯誤を繰り返し、上手（うま）くいかないことは削り落とし、よいと思われることを残して、社会規範として伝えてきた。

Under this special environment, our forefathers, for more than thousand years, through trial and error, again and again, by shaving off the bad, and letting the good remain, have passed down to us, societal norms.

4.少し前までは、「お天道様が見ている」、「世間様に顔向けできない」という言葉がよく使われていた。

Not so long ago, we used to say the following words; “the esteemed Sun is watching”, “Don’t [become ashamed] to show your face the honorable World.”

5.日本人は、そういう伝統的社会規範に照らして自らの行動を律してきたのである。

Illuminated by these these traditional norms, Japanese of their own accord judged their behavior. [i.e. they didn’t need laws.]

6.古い商家には、代々の体験にもとづいてつくられた家憲・家訓という規範があり、例えば、ただ利を追求するだけでなく、お得意様に不義理をしたり、お仕入れ先や下職（したしょく）の人をいじめるなど、道に外れたやり方で利を上げることを固く戒めてきた。

Based on generations of experience, the old mercantile houses formed norms, house constitutions — house precepts, and if they strayed this path [as established by the norms] to pursue only profit by not fulfilling their obligations to the customer or by bullying their subcontractors, then they were sternly admonished.

7.　ところが、そうした日本人の尊い精神は、国が豊かになるにつれ次第に希薄になってきている。

Yet the more our country has grown wealthy and abundant, the more our spirit of reverence has grown impoverished.

8.暖衣飽食の中で倫理観、道徳観は薄れ、「法に触れなければ問題ない」、「バレなければ何をやってもいい」と、悪徳商法や不祥事が頻発するようになった。

While well clothed and well fed [we may be], from the viewpoint of ethics and morals, you hear “So long as its not illegal it’s not a problem” “So long as you don’t get caught, it’s okay.” Unethical business dealings, deplorable scandals have become frequent occurrences.

9.戦後の教育の影響も大きい。

The postwar educational system has had a big influence here.

10.義務よりも権利、「公」よりも「私」を優先する戦後教育を受けた人が大人になり、さらにその影響を受けた子どもたちが大人になることによって、「お天道様が見ている」、「世間様に顔向けできない」という戒めが通用しない世の中になっている。

Take a person who has received this post-war education that gives priority to rights not duty, that puts the private above the public, when this person reaches adulthood, when that child who has been influenced [by this education] becomes an adult, then as a result, they won’t even understand it when they are admonished by saying “[Even if no one else sees the bad things you do] the Sun is watching”, “Don’t [become ashamed] to show your face to the World.”

10.　チャーチルも「民主主義は最悪の政治であるが、いままで存在したいかなる政治制度よりましである」と、その欠点を認めている。

Churchill’s quote that “democracy is the worst [form of] government but it’s better than all other government systems that have existed.” recognizes this defect.

11.賢人支配の独裁制に戻したほうがいいかといえば、独裁者がいつも賢人である保証はない。

Even if you were to say we should return to a despotism of ruler-ship by a wise man, there would be no guarantee that the despot would continue to be a wise man.

12.中小企業がやっとの思いで納めた十万円に価値を認めるのが政治である。

(Not clear without context.)

13.　保守主義の根本理念の一つは謙虚さである。

The main idea of conservatism is humbleness

14.　決断に際して最も信頼できる拠り所となるのは、先人が残してくれた伝統的な社会規範、すなわち「お天道様」であり「世間様」である。

The best foundation for making decisions is by looking at the normative consciousness that our forefathers have left to us. In other words “The Sun” and “the World”.

15.　日本人が失われつつある伝統的な社会規範を取り戻すためにも、自民党政治は、郵政改革と同様の情熱で、憲法改正、教育基本法の改正に取り組み、教育や相続制度のあり方、そして家業、家族をどう維持するかに答えを出さねばならないと思う。

In order to get back the traditional societal norms Japanese have lost, the LDP will, with the same fervor with which the postal system was reformed, strive to revise the constitution and to revise the fundamental law of education, (to make) the educational (system) and the inheritance system what it should be. And we must answer the question of how to support families and family businesses.

16.　伝統的な社会規範、人間の力を尊重し、それを取り戻す手を打つことによって、小泉改革に初めて車の両輪が揃（そろ）い、日本の将来に資する真の改革になると私は考える。

I think that depending on how well we can return to our traditional societal norms respect for human ability, then we will be able to move forward the reforms started by Koizumi.

Here’s something interesting. When discussing revisions to the Fundamental Law of Education in the Diet last November, Furumoto Shinichiro had a chance to question Bunmei Ibuki about his policies.

As I understand it, Furumoto is pushing Ibuki for specifics on what he wants changed in the schools as far as morals. In this context, Ibuki takes some time to explain what he means by kihan-ishiki or “normative” consciousness (規範意識).

Ibuki states:

この規範というのは、教育論がだれにでもできるというのは、まさにこういうところにかかっているんですが、何が人間社会のために必要なのかというのは、その人の人生観、価値観によってみんな違ってきますが、かなり共通のものがあるわけですね。各国共通のものがあります。各国共通のものは今の教育基本法にしっかりと書かれていると私は思います。

　しかし、日本独自のものがあるわけですよ。日本には日本の規範意識というものがあります。これは、日本の長い歴史の中でビンテージを持って醸成されてきた日本特有の文化の結晶のようなものですね。アメリカという国は、各国の規範意識を背負ってきた人が移民をもってつくった人工的な国ですから、一つの規範でなかなかやはり割り切りにくい国であるから、法律が社会の秩序の根幹に入っている。日本はやはりそうじゃない。そういうものは今回の教育基本法の中にかなり色濃く書かれているわけですね。

　ですから、当然、この法案が国会でお認めいただければ、学習指導要領等を含めて、何を教えるんだ、先生のお言葉で言えば道徳について、もう少し指導の範囲、あるいは教えるべきことを書き直すような御提案を中教審等からいただいてつくっていく、こういうことです。

Now let me take this apart, sentence by sentence and paraphrase what is being stated, note this is not an exact translation where I try to capture the style and organization of the words. I am trying as neutrally as possible merely to give a clear statement of their content. Corrections and help here would be very welcome, but here’s a translation as best I can do it:

1.　この規範というのは、教育論がだれにでもできるというのは、まさにこういうところにかかっているんですが、何が人間社会のために必要なのかというのは、その人の人生観、価値観によってみんな違ってきますが、かなり共通のものがあるわけですね。

Okay, as far as normative consciousness, let me explain about it. We can all debate about education. Further, we can get caught up on the issue of of just what is needed for people to live in society in terms of values. Certainly what a person thinks is needed will be a reflection of their life’s viewpoint, and their own value system. Each person will be different. However, there is a lot we all have in common, isn’t there?

2. 各国共通のものがあります。

There are values (moralities) which each and every country share.

3. 各国共通のものは今の教育基本法にしっかりと書かれていると私は思います。

As far as those values, I think they have been very well written into the Fundamental Law of Education as it is now.

4. しかし、日本独自のものがあるわけですよ。

However, let me tell you, Japan has it’s own special characteristics (in terms of morals/values) as well.

5. 日本には日本の規範意識というものがあります。

Japan has what we can call a Japanese normative consciousness.

6. これは、日本の長い歴史の中でビンテージを持って醸成されてきた日本特有の文化の結晶のようなものですね。

What is it (normative consciousness)? Japan throughout Japan’s long history has naturally engendered, like a wine of great vintage, a special characteristic culture that has crystalized.

7.　アメリカという国は、各国の規範意識を背負ってきた人が移民をもってつくった人工的な国ですから、一つの規範でなかなかやはり割り切りにくい国であるから、法律が社会の秩序の根幹に入っている。

Let’s take America as an example, it is a created, artificial country made up of migrants each carrying their own “normative consciousness” from their respective countries. That’s why it’s so very hard to find a single, clear-cut, norm for that country. This is why the societal system in America is based on law.

[In other words, because America is made up of migrants, there can’t be a kihan-ishiki, so it is a society focused on law (rights and so on). ]

8. 日本はやはりそうじゃない。

But just as you and I know it, that’s not Japan.

9. そういうものは今回の教育基本法の中にかなり色濃く書かれているわけですね。

That’s why I say, for this revision of the Fundamental Law of Education, we’ve got to write in the morality (values) that represent Japan.

10.　ですから、当然、この法案が国会でお認めいただければ、学習指導要領等を含めて、何を教えるんだ、先生のお言葉で言えば道徳について、もう少し指導の範囲、あるいは教えるべきことを書き直すような御提案を中教審等からいただいてつくっていく、こういうことです。

[This is a long, run-on sentence and hard to follow, basically I think he is saying something like: ] Therefore, as a matter of course, I want the Diet to approve this bill (the revision). It includes guidance for teachers concerning what morals need to be taught in school.

[I have modified this entry slightly and hope to revise more fully soon. It needs some cleaning up. I have continued to look into Ibuki in general and have a better idea now of what he is saying. 3-6-2007.]

I have several entries I want to make in regards to Bunmei Ibuki’s controversial comments. This will be the first of them.

I am calling it the Ibuki manifesto because I think people would be surprised to see what is on the Education Minister’s official home page.

Of especial interest is this page, which is very helpful in putting Ibuki’s recent remark into some kind of context.

What I will do is to summarize and paraphrase the more important aspects of this page. If you find that I’ve been unfaithful to the original, please comment!

Basically, the page discusses how Ibuki feels the Koizumi revolution (reformation) can be completed.

First thing Ibuki notes is that that “Ibuki-faction” supported Abe in the recent LDP leadership election.

So Ibuki is not only part of a faction, but leader of a faction. Now if the Wikipedia entry on the Liberal Democratic Party can be trusted, then as it turns out, this is the faction of Shizuka Kamei. And according to Wikipedia, the Ibuki-faction is: “considered by many to be the most right-wing grouping among the major factions.”

Okay, so Ibuki is probably right wing. No surprise there given his recent comments. Now, let’s look at some more of his manifesto.

Ibuki’s says, basically, that Koizumi’s reformation was only “half done” (中途半端) and that Ibuki now has “sense of impending disaster.” (危機感) .

Why? Well, you see, Ibuki has special insight into capitalism and free competition that Koizumi didn’t. Ibuki notes that there will be arrogant winners (勝者の傲慢) and apathetic losers (敗者の無気力) and that this will create a heavy burden on society.

He notes that while Koizumi’s reforms were okay, they weren’t enough. While it’s true that self-reliance (自助努力) and self-responsibility (自己責任) are good things, they are not the main things. By pushing things in the direction Koizumi pushed them, there will now be side-effects (副作用) that Ibuki and Abe will now have to manage.

Before going into detail, Ibuki digresses into another issue, the Koizumi Reform’s forgotten item (小泉改革の忘れ物), taxes. Ibuki says the govenrment will need more money to handle programs regarding health, nursing the old, and pensions. So it is urgent that we reform the tax system (税制改正). It’s time to think about raising more money for the government. (I take this to mean Japan should increase the sales tax.)

After this digression into taxes, Ibuki gets back to talking about the dangerous side-effects of a competitive capitalist system with is focus on self-reliance and self-responsibility.

Of course, the main side-effect, as Ibuki noted will be those winners and losers and the great gaps (格差) this creates in society between them. So the main way this will be fixed will be via education.

Now what sort of education system will we be needed? Well, not too many specifics are given, but first and foremost we are asked to accept the following unquestionable facts:

Although there are exceptions basically –
– Japan is one race (一民族).
– Ruled by one race (一民族の統治).
– A country of one language (一言語)
– A country without religious strife. (宗教的対立のない国)
– As we look out at the world we see how *rare* Japan is. (日本は、世界でも珍しい国)
– Throughout history, the work of (Japan’s) ancestors was to form a tacit set of normative consicousness went *beyond* the law. (?) (悠久の歴史のなかでの祖先の営みは、法律以上に強い暗黙の約束ごと、規範意識を形成してきました。)
– For just one sole time, following World War II, Japan was ruled by an occupation army, and for just under ten years Japanese culture stopped. (唯一度だけ、第二次世界大戦後に、日本の統治権は占領軍に移り、約十年弱の間、日本の文化は途絶しました。)
–It was during that very period when a the Fundamental Law of Education was passed creating the current educational system, an educational system that has gone on for 60 years, an educational system nearly all Japanese have passed through. (日本の統治権は占領軍に移り、約十年弱の間、日本の文化は途絶しました。この間に作られた教育基本法と教育制度は約六十年間続き、この制度で教育を受けた日本人が、人口のほとんどを占めています。)
–And now as we see the (undesirable?) results, it is time to resuscitate the educational system for the next one hundred years. (教育の効果は五十年後に現れ、その再生は百年の計。)

After this Ibuki talks about how the LDP will have to win the next upper house election and so on and so forth.

And that is, in short, the Ibuki manifesto.

So does this mean we can expect Ibuki to find a solution to the growing number of international children who aren’t receiving an education? Perhaps not.

However, when we put his manifesto together with his comments from last week-end we see just how distorted a world view Ibuki has.

He sees the Fundamental Law of Education, which de-emphasized national spirit and emphasized human rights as a Western perversion of the what real Japanese education should be. While we don’t have any specifics to go on here, he clearly wants to return to some form the pre-WWII educational system in Japan, where rights are de-emphasized and national unity emphasized.

Specifically he wants people to learn his version of what virtue is, which for him is probably some type of far right ideology.

I will continue to look into this, and report more here later.