[Complexicate]

The Bloomberg article exacerbates the bigotry many Japanese have against their own fellow citizens. In the caption of the first picture: "She’s not all Japanese, but she was Miss Universe Japan 2015."

Yes, she is "all" Japanese. She grew up in Japan, with her Japanese mother, attending Japanese schools. This is the subtle bigotry toward people who are "half" (as they're called in Japan) rather than "dual". Many Japanese will always consider them "less Japanese" or outsiders.

She had dual citizenship because of her father. When asked which citizenship she would she would choose, she said, 「もちろん、日本を選ぶわ。自分では、私はとことん日本人だと思っている。そう、１００％日本人よ。肌の色の違いは、その人となりとは全く関係ないはず」

"Of course I will choose Japan. I think of myself as thoroughly Japanese. 100% Japanese. It should have nothing to do with heredity, with a different skin color."

https://www.sankei.com/premium/news/150429/prm1504290022-n3....

[hh3k0]

> Yes, she is "all" Japanese. She grew up in Japan, with her Japanese mother, attending Japanese schools. This is the subtle bigotry toward people who are "half" (as they're called in Japan) rather than "dual". Many Japanese will always consider them "less Japanese" or outsiders.

Just because she qualifies as Japanese from your point of view doesn't mean that the Japanese have to view it like you. White savior complex much? I've spoken with Japanese friends about hafus and their point of view was that people do not materialize out of thin air, but rather are the genetic conglomerate of their ancestors (which is hard to argue against) and thus links in a chain -- which would make her less Japanese. And that seems fine to me, as long as she is not discriminated against for being viewed less Japanese.

[Tor3]

> but rather are the genetic conglomerate of their ancestors (which is hard to argue against) and thus links in a chain

But that's exactly it. It's not like that. Or shouldn't be. That's not what makes a person a part of a group (town, city, region, country, etc). It's a constraining, and wrong way of looking at things. It's something to grow out of. Heck, in my hometown we consider someone as 'from' this town (to translate the term we use, approximately) even if they're not born here, maybe they even moved here in their twenties, and maybe from another continent, maybe looking totally different; if they just 'fit in' and find their comfortable place here. If they bring on something new (combining culture/music from their background with something existing), even better. They are 100% part of what's us. Except for those of the never non-existent, but still tiny minority of the "you're not one of us" group. Those telling young girls (as did an old woman the other day, not in this town but out in the countryside) "you can't wear that traditional costume, you're not one of us" (the girl's grandfather was adopted from some place, or some such).

[hh3k0]

It is revolting how terribly arrogant your comment is, really.

They don't have a "wrong way of looking at things" simply because it is not your way. And your way is by no means the way.

[Tor3]

I should maybe add 'in my opinion'. But in truth, I really believe it's wrong. It does not lead to anything positive, quite the contrary. And I've never seen a community become worse by moving into a more modern, open view on diversity and acceptance. And to focus: I really, truly mean that the idea that what "makes" you (and that's what I was commenting on) is your ancestors, is just wrong. Genetic chain? Well, so what, we're all a part of a genetic chain, and the same one at that, which goes back nearly four billion years. Take one step back to get the overview and it matters nothing (nor should it) who your father was.

[zlakb]

It leads to something positive to them, it seems.

"more modern, open view on diversity and acceptance" is not positive by itself. Unless you're looking from the point of view of those entering the country, which are people that nationals don't have to care about.

[Tor3]

I'm actually taking the point of view from the nationals, as you call it. With people coming from other places on earth the area I'm currently living in became a good place to live. I got the nicest next-door neighbours it's possible to imagine, for example. My wife cried when they moved to another place (to get more space). The city center is also a vastly more dynamic and interesting place to be than it used to be back when everything was monotone. Back when the only non-native language you could hear was a little bit of English, and the occasional tourists from nearby countries. Now there are more than a hundred languages spoken here. It works fantastically well, but it demands that you avoid creating ghettos for immigrants, as has been the unfortunate expericence of some cities elsewhere in Europe.

[umadon]

Genetic determinism is an essential tenet of eugenics.

[nabla9]

Perceiving someone as 'not one of us' without discrimination is very rare, especially in Japan.

Basically all Japanese citizens perceived as 'others' face heavy discrimination. Korean minority, burakumin, Ainu, etc.

[magpi3]

If mixed ethnicity makes you less Japanese than of course you will be discriminated against. At the very least families who want their descendants to be "more" Japanese will resist allowing their children to marry those who are "less" Japanese. That is discrimination. Even the term "less Japanese" sounds like a perjorative in a country so deeply founded on a specific cultural identity.

We live in a global world now. Countries that fundamentally tie their culture to ethnicities will someday be a thing of the past. It is just question of how long it will take some countries to accept it. And for the mistakes that the U.S. has made, one thing it has gotten right (for the most part) is its acknowledgement that diversity is a strength and being American has nothing to do with your bloodline.

Of course there are racists in the U.S. who would say otherwise, but I think they are short-sighted fools. One of the U.S.'s biggest competitive advantages in a global economy is its (relative) freedom from the historical baggage that weighs down other countries whose national identity is tied to a specific ethnicity or rigid cultural identity.

[blub]

"We live in a global world now. Countries that fundamentally tie their culture to ethnicities will someday be a thing of the past. "

No we don't and no they won't be. The only countries that are making this mistake are those from Western Europe and the US & co. Others are proud of their heritage, cherish it and fight for their culture.

Your utopia may only be true once we become space-faring and encounter other species. Only then our humanity will unite us in spite of our differences.

The US... is a darn poor choice of example. Half the population voted for a president that wants to build a wall around Mexico. Half the population are short-sighted fools, are they? The US is rife with ethnic conflict, I used to think it's a success story, but now I think that it's a ticking time bomb.

[magpi3]

I am not describing a utopia. I just do not think, barring some world-wide catastrophe, there is any way you can turn the clock back on globalism at this point. I know people want to go back. People always want to live in the past. Many Trump voters were voting for someone to take them back to the past. Same with Brexit. But go far back enough in the past and you will see everything was once different.

The world is changing and that change is pointing in one direction however much people want to fight it.

[blub]

Globalization is a nice idea in theory, but it looks like the human psyche is not ready for it and neither are politics.

The world order seems to be more fragile than you think, I don't understand why you're so confident.

[magpi3]

Am I confident ethnic nationalists will be proven definitively wrong in my lifetime? No. But my confidence comes from basic math. All capitalist countries have to accept immigration at some point. Even China will have face a population crisis at some point if it does not accept immigration someday.

And once you acknowledge the need for immigration, you open the door for diversity. And once you acknowledge that countries in fact have to compete for these immigrants (specifically in the technology and science fields), you open the door for acceptance as a competitive advantage.

As an immigrant with a choice in the matter, where would you prefer to live: in a country that where ethnic nationalists will always view you and your children as foreigners, or in a country that values and celebrates diversity?

The US can fuck up in so many different ways, but as long as it doesn't fuck up in this one specific way it will always have a competitive advantage over countries that have longer histories and hence more ethnic baggage: it has to value, appreciate, and celebrate diversity as a strength and not a weakness. I am confident (or maybe just extremely hopeful) that the Trump era is the one step back before the next two steps forward in this regard.

I view what has happened in U.S. professional sports as a microcosm of what is happening in the world. Professional sports teams that embraced globalization quickly gained a significant competitive advantage over other teams. And that forced those other teams to follow suit. I believe the same phenomenon will happen all over the world, albeit at a much slower pace and with a lot of racists being dragged along kicking and screaming.

[slothtrop]

Congrats, you just described racism. "All Japanese" in this instance refers to the nation and by extension parent culture, not ethnicity.

[distantaidenn]

That's exactly the problem though. She is being veiwed as less Japanese and subsequently discriminated against.

[village-idiot]

This is the conflict that arises when the name for the group applies to a nationality and a distinctly identifiable racial group as well. Some will use “Japanese” to talk about those that are legally and culturally from Japan, and others will use the word to reference those that are genetically from Japan.

[world32]

So do you think it's OK for me as a white Englishman to consider a black person born in England to not truly be English?

What about for a German to consider Jews to be less German? Is that ok too? Its just their "culture" right?

Edit: I suggest you watch this exchange between a black Englishman Gary Young and the white supremacist Richard Spencer. It's nasty stuff right? Him telling the guy "you're not a real Englishman". Yet you have japanese friends who say exactly the same thing about non ethnically Japanese people and you think that's fine? How do you square that circle?

https://youtu.be/puJ-arJgkZU

[zlakb]

If you said the same thing of a European country your comment would be flagged already.

[blub]

I don't know how you meant that, but this is absolutely the case in every European country that I know of.

You are considered one of them if you have the appropriate skin color, name, accent, etc. This is so deeply ingrained in the human psyche that it's nuts to even fight it. It will only change when a large enough part of the population will have the "wrong" skin color, name or accent. Or you get large scale open conflicts, I guess, there's no guarantees of a happy end, on the contrary.

[anthuman]

If you claim that she is all japanese, then aren't you denying her african-american roots?

She is half japanese because half of her family and genetic history is from japan. The other half is from her african american father. Isn't it more bigoted to deny that half of her comes from her african american father?

Also, there is a difference between ethnicity and nationality. She may be a full japanese national, but she is not a full ethnic japanese.

Just like charlize theron could be a south african national, but you wouldn't call her a black woman.

I agree with her that being a japanese national should have nothing to do with heredity or skin color, but heredity and skin color most definitely has something to do with the japanese ethnicity.

To claim otherwise is to claim there is no suching thing as a japanese ethnicity and it destroys any sense of human diversity that we all pretend to love while trying to actively destroy human diversity.

[havill]

> heredity and skin color most definitely has something to do with the japanese ethnicity.

Only to racists. Just as being Jewish is an ethnicity (as well as a religion), you don't have to be white or have Jewish parents to be of Jewish ethnicity.

More and more Japanese Nationals with mixed race are born all the time, and raised completely in Japan and only speak Japanese, yet would "pass as white."

And when they're famous and appear in the media, they are considered by most of the Japanese audience to be ethnically Japanese.

On the other hand, there are quite a few Japanese-Americans whose parents are both racially "100%" Japanese, yet because they speak awful or nonexistent Japanese and or "act American" or "have American values", are not considered to be ethnically Japanese.

[blub]

I've included a definition of racism here for you: "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior".

Given that there is no prejudice or antagonism present, your accusation of racism is nonsense. In fact you're doing something as equally poisonous as racists, except in reverse: pretending that there is no race, no ethnicity. Erasing the heritage of people with a sponge in order to depict a so-called utopia that nobody except extremists wants.

[atom-morgan]

> If you claim that she is all japanese, then aren't you denying her african-american roots?

I don't think so. I'm American, "all" American. I was born here and have lived almost my entire 29 years of life here. But I am also half-Korean.

I think it depends on whether OP meant Japanese as a citizen or Japanese as their sole ethnic background.

[anthuman]

American is a nationality, it is not an ethnicity. There is no "ethnic american" due to historic reason.

You are half-korean, so what is your other half? White? So you are half korean and half white.

You wouldn't say you are 100% korean and 100% white. That would be ridiculous right? Your ethnic history and composition can't add up to 200%. Even if you claimed to be 100% korean or 100% white, neither white nor korean people would consider you to be 100% white or korean.

That's my point. There is nationality and ethnicity. Those are two different things. A chinese person could move to germany and become a german citizen or national. But nobody would consider him an ethnic german.

[c0vfefe]

> There is nationality and ethnicity. Those are two different things.

Thank you! This whole top-level comment thread is just conflating the two.

[sridca]

Yup, there are 4 combinations in total. For example, a white American will see:

1. Someone of different nationality (eg: a white Australian)

2. Someone of different ethnicity (eg: a Black American)

3. Someone of both different nationality and ethnicity (eg: a fresh off the boat immigrant from India)

4. Someone of same nationality and ethnicity (i.e., fellow white Americans).

Now one may, in principle at least, accept that all these categories of people should be treated with impartiality and respect in every sphere of life ... however can they also sincerely report not feeling these identities as separate? I think this is what anthuman is getting at.

[magpi3]

The conflation that is happening in this thread is between culture and ethnicity not nationality and ethnicity. When someone of mixed race says they are "all Japanese" they are obviously talking about their culture and not their passport.

[sridca]

Culture is tied to nationality. Do you have an example indicating the contrary?

[magpi3]

Of course. Nation states have not been round that long. Just a few hundred years.

Jewish culture exists throughout the world. All religious cultures actually. Islamic culture.

Immigrants often retain many aspects of their culture when they move to a new country.

The US itself is a huge mismash of different cultures. People in the US are not bound by a single cultural identity. They are bound by the constitution and the principles and values it represents.

[slothtrop]

By the same token, Japanese is also a nationality as well as ethnicity. This is what it would mean, in context, for her to say she's all Japanese.

[Grustaf]

No it’s not bigotry to say that someone that is half-japanese is ‘not all Japanese”. Bigotry is if you treat her worse because of it.

Citizenship may be “dual” but biological race isn’t, it has to add up to 100%. Clearly that is what they are referring to here.

Not all countries are America, there are plenty of places with a pretty well defined ethnicity, like Japan.

[lm28469]

I don't think "bigotry" means what you think it means. It applies to opinions, as in being intolerant to people who have different opinions than yours, not origins/ethnicity/&c.

[coldtea]

>Yes, she is "all" Japanese. She grew up in Japan, with her Japanese mother, attending Japanese schools. This is the subtle bigotry toward people who are "half" (as they're called in Japan) rather than "dual". Many Japanese will always consider them "less Japanese" or outsiders.

That's her culture and nationality (and even the culture part could be dual). They refer to her ethnicity and ancestry.

[55555]

The word Japanese can refer to both nationality and ethnicity, no?

[sridca]

> Many Japanese will always consider them "less Japanese" or outsiders.

Isn't this true of other nations?

[Tor3]

> Isn't this true of other nations?

Not as a general rule, no. What makes the distinction for me is the dialect they speak and their way of speaking. Then I'll have them firmly identified as 'from that town', or 'that particular part of the country' and there's no way for me to think of them differently. Where their parents came from has no part of it for me or for most people. It's just not possible for my mind to think of somebody who speaks like a native (as they will, when they were born here or moved here as a child) as being any kind of "outsider". In my experience small children never make any distinction either, anywhere in the world. That comes later, and they learn it from their parents. That's when the problems start.

[sridca]

> In my experience small children never make any distinction either, anywhere in the world.

Are you familiar with The Clarks' doll experiments?

    The doll experiment involved a child being presented with two dolls. 
    Both of these dolls were completely identical except for the skin and 
    hair color. One doll was white with yellow hair, while the other was 
    brown with black hair. The child was then asked questions inquiring 
    as to which one is the doll they would play with, which one is the nice 
    doll, which one looks bad, which one has the nicer color, etc. The 
    experiment showed a clear preference for the white doll among all 
    children in the study.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_and_Mamie_Clark#Doll_e...

Though the effect was less intense for children from integrated schools.

[Tor3]

Yes, I'm aware of it. And I think it backs up what I mentioned - the Clark experiment was made with young children attending schools. That's way past the time when they've had time to soak up the attitudes around them. How does the experiment work with 1-year (or 2, up to maybe three year) old children? That's where my anecdotal experience comes from: they don't care.

But I once heard a five year old boy complaining "I don't want to have to see naked people!" or some such thing. But he was from a country where that (nudeness) is made an issue. From other countries children of that age don't even notice or care. In other words, the complainer learned that from someone. That episode really stuck with me because I had never in my life heard a child opiniate about that before.

[mter]

Japan is extra special in this regard. My brother who is japanese, married a japanese national, speaks japanese and lives in japan is not "Japanese". That's what the article is referring to.

[sridca]

Could you elaborate on what specifically makes him "not Japanese"?

[sadris]

Lack of Japanese genes