Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

things you cannot get used to
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Japan
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
G Cthulhu



Joined: 07 Feb 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: Way, way off course.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rooster_2006 wrote:
G Cthulhu wrote:
Rooster_2006 wrote:

Well...let me respond to that...I think that every nation has the right to decide who comes into their nation within reasonable limits. I don't think that race is a reasonable criteria, though. The current system favors people with Japanese ancestry, which is, quite frankly, racist.


No, it's bigotry. Unless you accept the Japanese notion of uniqueness, which would be kinda ironic given your position.
UN CERD Article 1:
"...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERD#Definition_of_.22racial_discrimination.22
Brazilian Nikkeijin are of Japanese descent, and are of Japanese ethnic origin. The special Nikkei visas (note the part of Article 1 where it says "distinction" and "preference") are a clear violation of the CERD.


I take it you don't understand the difference between racism & bigotry - the only point I made there?


Quote:

G Cthulhu wrote:
But that's beside the point. Japan, as a nation, *can* decide to do pretty much as it pleases on that front.
Sure, Japan "can" do anything. But that doesn't mean that Nikkei-favoring visas are right. They are a clear violation of CERD Article 1.

I *can* complain about whatever I want, too. Like visas that favor Nikkei in violation of the UN CERD.


Indeed. You can complain. But you aren't the nation state of Japan, so they get more "right" to do as they please. Including, as we both acknowledge, ignoring parts of treaties they might have signed that they choose to.


Quote:

G Cthulhu wrote:
rooster_2006 wrote:
And you can't argue that "this is Japan, not America," because Japanese signed the UN CERD, too. They can't just sign that document, make a promise to the UN, and then turn around and completely ignore the CERD.


Of course they can. Countries do it all the time. To argue otherwise is to basically try to ignore reality.
Ummm...not saying it "doesn't happen," just saying it isn't right. I probably can't change it, but that doesn't make it right. You seem to have a lot of trouble separating "what is" from "what should be."


Not in the slightest. I'm simply pointing out that your assertion that Japan is in the wrong because they're breaching agreement X or Y is not a very strong argument for (at least) the two reasons I gave. I specifically stated that countries ignore things all the time. That implicitly acknowledges your point, so your response in the last sentence is simply ad hominum.


Quote:

"What is:" Japan has visas that are in violation of the CERD.

"What should be:" Japan should have visas that do not take race into account.


Aside from the legal argument, why?


Quote:

But in your mind, "what is" and "what should be" seem to be rolled into one convenient little package. Must make life really wonderful, believing that everything is perfectly just.


More ad hominum. Do *try* to address the problems you have with the argument.


Quote:

G Cthulhu wrote:
rooster_2006 wrote:
Nikkeijin/people with Japanese ancestry (mostly Brazilians with some Japanese blood) can come here with a "Designated Activities" visa, which permits more activities and has a longer duration than our visas. They can get permanent residency in three to five years. Meanwhile, people without Japanese blood are expected to wait ten years.

I have to ask "How is that not racist?"


Well, to play devil's advocate for a moment, do you get as upset about people claiming citizenship through their parents? Why not?
Simple. I don't think millions of babies should be born stateless. That's a completely different issue.


You're right. It is a completely separate issue. One not raised by me. Not even hinted at by me, in fact. Or even relevant: they won't be born stateless.

But to get back on track from your distraction, we're talking about gaining citizenship through parents. So I'll repeat the question for you: how do you differentiate between children claiming citizenship in another country through their parents vs claiming it through a more distant biological connection?

*You're* asserting that the Japanese awarding it to people 5-6 generations back is bad. Assuming you think citizenship via parents is ok I'm simply asking where the cutoff point is, and why?

This is directly relevant to your argument because it's how Japan addresses the treaty you referred to.





Quote:

The Brazilian Nikkei already have a citizenship and a country. They should have to wait in line like everybody else.


Why? Don't just say it: provide a logically valid argument.


Quote:

G Cthulhu wrote:
How does it matter if it's one generation or five generations removed?
See above. Being a stateless baby really, royally sucks. Nikkei are not stateless, nor are they babies.


The stateless thing is a red herring.


Quote:

G Cthulhu wrote:
rooster_2006 wrote:
If Japan wants to make permanent residency difficult for everyone, then fine. If Japan wants to say "American-style multiculturalism is a failed social experiment, let's only let in a trickle of immigrants," then fine. However, visas based specifically on Japanese blood need to stop.


Take the bit above and reverse it: "Japan is actually more liberal because it allows descent to factor into entry and citizenship whereas most countries only allow citizenship via parents."

No, it's not more liberal. Extra visa freedoms for Nikkei come at the expense of freedoms for everybody else, especially other foreigners. You saw the CERD Article 1, right? "Preference" was included as a type of discrimination. It's impossible to give one group of people preferential treatment without hurting the other groups. That's basic logic.


No, it isn't basic logic, unless you actually think visa regimes are a zero sum game. (If you really do think it's a simple first order logical argument then feel free to provide the notation proving it. Lemon format will do, thanks.)

It's very simple: you call it preference and I'm suggesting an alternative. Your simply repeating, "No, it's preference" isn't proof of anything.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rooster_2006



Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 984

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

G Cthulhu, I'm done with you in this thread. I've expressed my views quite eloquently if I do so say myself, using Article 1 of the UN CERD. No matter what proof I have, you're going to either ignore it or try to shoot it down (as usual), so as another poster said to you recently in another thread:
Quote:
Hmm. I see. You're setting me up for some kind of intellectual coup de grace. I'd better just resign now before I get totally humiliated.

Bye.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
G Cthulhu



Joined: 07 Feb 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: Way, way off course.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rooster_2006 wrote:
G Cthulhu, I'm done with you in this thread. I've expressed my views quite eloquently if I do so say myself, using Article 1 of the UN CERD. No matter what proof I have, you're going to either ignore it or try to shoot it down (as usual), so as another poster said to you recently in another thread:
Quote:
Hmm. I see. You're setting me up for some kind of intellectual coup de grace. I'd better just resign now before I get totally humiliated.

Bye.


Uh-huh. Of course. Rolling Eyes Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dove



Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Posts: 226
Location: USA/Japan

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

steki47 wrote:
Rooster_2006 wrote:
I don't think that race is a reasonable criteria, though.


I'll disagree with you on this. I think that race/culture/ethnicity is a valid criteria. Especially in ethnostates, such as Israel and Japan. They wish to maintain a certain ethnic identity and restrict who comes in.

Am I being silly because I am a white American in Japan? No. We are not refugees, we are skilled workers Japan wants to be here. We serve a purpose.


But does Japan want you here forever? Does it want you marrying its citizens and creating "half" babies?

I always find it so ironic that the people who defend Japan's desire to maintain a "certain ethnic identity" are, well, here. Yes, I know you are not a refugee and you are serving a purpose with your specialist in humanities
distinction, but you ARE here and you are probably pissing off a nationalist or an apologist who wants a pure Japanese nation (the belief you defend). They might even think YOU are a refugee, not the honorable gaijin that I am sure you are.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HLJHLJ



Joined: 06 Oct 2009
Posts: 860

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rooster_2006 wrote:

No, it's bigotry. Unless you accept the Japanese notion of uniqueness, which would be kinda ironic given your position. UN CERD Article 1:
"...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERD#Definition_of_.22racial_discrimination.22


I don't really want to get drawn into the details of this thread, but the above quote totally baffles me. If this is meant to apply to citizenship then countries cannot decide citizenship according to descent, or national or ethnic origin. So what are they allowed to base citizenship on? No country could refuse anyone citizenship and no-one could be refused entry to any country based on nationality, passports and borders would be meaningless. Surely CERD is not intended to be used like that?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cool Teacher



Joined: 18 May 2009
Posts: 887
Location: Here, There and Everywhere! :D

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rooster_2006 wrote:
ALX wrote:
Apologists are just constantly entranced with being in the land of anime, manga, and samurai.

Kinda like kids in Disneyland.
True, that is one type of apologist.

I think there are several different types.

The type you just described is the naive apologist. Some common traits of the naive apologist are:
- Either hasn't ever been to Japan, or has only been in Japan a short time
- Loves Japanese pop culture (indeed Japanese pop culture has produced many first-class things)

Eventually, the naive apologist will probably stop being an apologist. After getting screwed the first, second, or nth time, he or she will go on to become disillusioned and angry (a basher), or, in the case of more mentally healthy individuals, become someone with a balanced viewpoint.

There are definitely other types, too. But that is certainly one of them.

I'll admit, back in '06, when I moved to Korea, I started out as what I'd now classify as an apologist. I'd watched a glitzy Korean drama, met some beautiful and friendly Korean women studying abroad in America, taken a couple levels of Korean at the local high school adult education program, and chilled at night with my Korean co-workers on the night shift of my low-rung job in America. I had just arrived in Korea, and was introduced to the wonders of soju and makgeolli. It was a happy time. As far as I was concerned, Korea and Koreans just plain rocked.

At a bar with Koreans, I suddenly yelled out, drunk and exuberant, "Dokdo is Korean land!" in Korean. Of course, the Koreans around me loved that and gave me high fives, but I later realized, I was being an idiot. I was defending Korea's sovereignty claim over an island that I knew virtually nothing about. Is Dokdo Korean territory? I don't know. But what I do know is that I was a tool that night I was an apologist.

I also defended Korea's immigration policy. I had heard somewhere that someone could get an F-2 with seven years of continuous residence in Korea. "That's fair," I thought.

But then, in '07, my apologist worldview was shattered. First, a law office told me that the F-2 via seven years of continuous residence was a sham. Second, in June of '07, I was assaulted on the street by two drunk Korean men for absolutely no reason I was just walking to the convenience store, when one of them yelled "HEY WHITE PERSON!" and started punching me. I had never met the guys, had not done anything to insult or offend them, or anything. I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Suddenly, my naivete was shattered. I was no longer an apologist.

I think that most naive apologists eventually have these awakenings.

However, the most dangerous type of apologist is the type that has something to gain by being an apologist. He may have been here for several years and moved up the gaijin totem pole. He doesn't want other gaijin to have rights, because he wants a monopoly. And those guys are really dangerous.


Sir if I could put on my Sigmond Freud spectacles for a second I would suggest you may be suffering a very severe case of transfernce and projection. Cool The perons you are most mad at is yourself for the way those violent, aggressive and racist Koreans took you for a ride and laughed at your Uncle Tom wasy with yout support of Koreas claim to Dokdo (by the way I support Koreas claim to Dokdo too! Very Happy ) When you got beated up by some Koreans you wondered, "Why? Why me? I did everything right and even sold a bit of my Seoul to Korea and then they stab me like this in the back!" Shocked I think I understand it but at the same time Korea is not the only place people get beated up for being foreginers. Unfortunately it happens in the UK adn US too. Sad I think, in my Freudian pose, you see apologists in a very negative light because they remind you of your past and you externalize your internal pain. Sad

I am sorry to hear of your stor y but please try to wonder if some of your anger is not self-directed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cool Teacher



Joined: 18 May 2009
Posts: 887
Location: Here, There and Everywhere! :D

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HLJHLJ wrote:
Rooster_2006 wrote:

No, it's bigotry. Unless you accept the Japanese notion of uniqueness, which would be kinda ironic given your position. UN CERD Article 1:
"...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERD#Definition_of_.22racial_discrimination.22


I don't really want to get drawn into the details of this thread, but the above quote totally baffles me. If this is meant to apply to citizenship then countries cannot decide citizenship according to descent, or national or ethnic origin. So what are they allowed to base citizenship on? No country could refuse anyone citizenship and no-one could be refused entry to any country based on nationality, passports and borders would be meaningless. Surely CERD is not intended to be used like that?


I guess the USA would be in violation for its natural born citizen requitement for president too. Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
G Cthulhu



Joined: 07 Feb 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: Way, way off course.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cool Teacher wrote:
HLJHLJ wrote:
Rooster_2006 wrote:

UN CERD Article 1:"...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERD#Definition_of_.22racial_discrimination.22


I don't really want to get drawn into the details of this thread, but the above quote totally baffles me. If this is meant to apply to citizenship then countries cannot decide citizenship according to descent, or national or ethnic origin. So what are they allowed to base citizenship on? No country could refuse anyone citizenship and no-one could be refused entry to any country based on nationality, passports and borders would be meaningless. Surely CERD is not intended to be used like that?


I guess the USA would be in violation for its natural born citizen requitement for president too. Cool


Pointing out the inconsistencies and holes in rooster's reasoning just makes him run away. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steki47



Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 679
Location: BFE Inaka

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dove wrote:


But does Japan want you here forever? Does it want you marrying its citizens and creating "half" babies?

I always find it so ironic that the people who defend Japan's desire to maintain a "certain ethnic identity" are, well, here. Yes, I know you are not a refugee and you are serving a purpose with your specialist in humanities
distinction, but you ARE here and you are probably pissing off a nationalist or an apologist who wants a pure Japanese nation (the belief you defend). They might even think YOU are a refugee, not the honorable gaijin that I am sure you are.


In answer to your questions: apparently not and probably not.

In any case, I am not an absolutist in either direction: "mixed" vs. "pure". Silly terms, humor me. I do see a lot of advantages to more homogeneous societies and see a lot of potential disadvantages to heterogeneous societies.

100% "pure" seems like a ridiculous concept in theory and practice. Essentially, I see the East Asian model of 95%+ and a few skilled workers and "useful" people from other countries a rather good idea. It maintains some social cohesion while importing skills from around the world.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rxk22



Joined: 19 May 2010
Posts: 1028

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can't get used to the one chance to make it in Japan. If you screw up in JHS, and go to a cruddy HS, then you don't get into a decent college, or you go straight to work. Which means by 17, your life is already decided career wise.

no retraining, or going back to school and gaining new skills. It kinda gets me, when a smart student, is obviously messing around at school, and could potentially miss out on making something out of themselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rxk22



Joined: 19 May 2010
Posts: 1028

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

steki47 wrote:
dove wrote:


But does Japan want you here forever? Does it want you marrying its citizens and creating "half" babies?

I always find it so ironic that the people who defend Japan's desire to maintain a "certain ethnic identity" are, well, here. Yes, I know you are not a refugee and you are serving a purpose with your specialist in humanities
distinction, but you ARE here and you are probably pissing off a nationalist or an apologist who wants a pure Japanese nation (the belief you defend). They might even think YOU are a refugee, not the honorable gaijin that I am sure you are.


In answer to your questions: apparently not and probably not.

In any case, I am not an absolutist in either direction: "mixed" vs. "pure". Silly terms, humor me. I do see a lot of advantages to more homogeneous societies and see a lot of potential disadvantages to heterogeneous societies.

100% "pure" seems like a ridiculous concept in theory and practice. Essentially, I see the East Asian model of 95%+ and a few skilled workers and "useful" people from other countries a rather good idea. It maintains some social cohesion while importing skills from around the world.


That would be good. Tons of immigrants tend to make things worse, not better. Besides do you need to import people to take out the trash? How about paying the people who do it, a real wage? Otherwise you undermine society.

I, like many others would not want to see much of Tokyo turn into a giant Roppongi.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OneJoelFifty



Joined: 06 Oct 2009
Posts: 463

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 1:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

HLJHLJ wrote:
Rooster_2006 wrote:

No, it's bigotry. Unless you accept the Japanese notion of uniqueness, which would be kinda ironic given your position. UN CERD Article 1:
"...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERD#Definition_of_.22racial_discrimination.22


I don't really want to get drawn into the details of this thread, but the above quote totally baffles me. If this is meant to apply to citizenship then countries cannot decide citizenship according to descent, or national or ethnic origin. So what are they allowed to base citizenship on? No country could refuse anyone citizenship and no-one could be refused entry to any country based on nationality, passports and borders would be meaningless. Surely CERD is not intended to be used like that?


I believe Rooster is applying it to one group of non-Japanese being given preferential treatment (in this argument, with regards to visas) over another group of non-Japanese. It definitely doesn't mean every country that signed is obliged to offer immediate citizenship to anyone who rocks up at the airport.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rooster_2006



Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 984

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OneJoelFifty wrote:
HLJHLJ wrote:
Rooster_2006 wrote:

No, it's bigotry. Unless you accept the Japanese notion of uniqueness, which would be kinda ironic given your position. UN CERD Article 1:
"...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERD#Definition_of_.22racial_discrimination.22


I don't really want to get drawn into the details of this thread, but the above quote totally baffles me. If this is meant to apply to citizenship then countries cannot decide citizenship according to descent, or national or ethnic origin. So what are they allowed to base citizenship on? No country could refuse anyone citizenship and no-one could be refused entry to any country based on nationality, passports and borders would be meaningless. Surely CERD is not intended to be used like that?


I believe Rooster is applying it to one group of non-Japanese being given preferential treatment (in this argument, with regards to visas) over another group of non-Japanese. It definitely doesn't mean every country that signed is obliged to offer immediate citizenship to anyone who rocks up at the airport.
You're right, OneJoelFifty, that's what I meant. I was originally talking about visas, not citizenship. G Cthulhu introduced citizenship as a red herring, but actually, I had never mentioned it.

Last edited by Rooster_2006 on Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:29 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ALX



Joined: 19 Sep 2012
Posts: 36
Location: The Big Hill

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aah when you're big in Japan-tonight...

Big in Japan-be-tight...

Big in Japan... ooh the eastern sea's so blue...

Big in Japan-alright, pay!

Then I'll sleep by your side

Things are easy when you're big in Japan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rooster_2006



Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 984

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 3:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

G Cthulhu wrote:
Pointing out the inconsistencies and holes in rooster's reasoning just makes him run away. Laughing
Actually, G Cthulhu, I just didn't see any point in arguing with you, and attempted to exit the debate simply because I'm tired of your games. You first make ridiculous claims that are impossible to defend, then when you're losing, you shift goalposts, use ad hominem, and simply dismiss as invalid any piece of evidence I present, including the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. You don't play by the rules. You are not fun to debate with.

Quite frankly, I don't think I should have to be the only guy on this forum who stands up to you. There are certainly plenty of people who disagree with your contrarian, nit-picking viewpoints, but most of them just ignore you rather than engaging you. Although I understand why they do this, I wish I weren't the only person with some balls around here.

But since you feel the need to continue to make rude posts about me, I'm back. Hopefully not for long. I'm taking a vacation to Kyoto this weekend, and won't be drawn into your petty little games starting tomorrow.

You see, I have already provided the copied-and-pasted text of the UN CERD (which Japan voluntarily signed) that expressly defines racism, which the UN CERD seeks to eliminate:
Quote:
Article 1 of the Convention defines "racial discrimination" as

...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin


You first try to claim that my definition of "racism" is invalid. Not my definition, G Cthulhu. The UN's definition.

Then, amazingly, you argue back by saying essentially "Countries ignore treaties they sign all the time, big deal, Japan can do as it pleases."

Well, if you don't agree that treaties are valid, and if you don't agree that countries should follow treaties they voluntarily signed, then I'm at a loss for what we're going to agree on.

Yep, let's take a little trip down Memory Lane:
G Cthulhu wrote:
they get more "right" to do as they please. Including ignoring parts of treaties they might have signed that they choose to.

It's an ironic position for you to take, considering that you're a member of a former "Allied" country living in Japan, a former "Axis" country. Since you said it's okay for a country to ignore parts of treaties it has signed that it chooses to, I guess that nothing's stopping Japan from ignoring various clauses in the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco and putting you in a POW camp.


Last edited by Rooster_2006 on Fri Oct 05, 2012 3:29 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Japan All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 6 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2011 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Road2Spain - TEFL and Spanish with one year student visa
EBC