Job Discussion Forums

[Brooks]

true. Or how about if people mention that they got gyped.
Gyp comes from gypsies.

[Captain Onigiri]

oops. I meant to write more. Sometimes what a person says isn't what another person hears. What my father meant when he said that is that he was off to do work he'd rather not do. But to a person of a different background what he said could convey completely different (and very negative) images. Learning Nihongo as a Western adult without being immersed in the culture from a baby could cause confusion in the images trying to be conveyed.
Each language has its stock phrases that the speakers use without thought of their origins. I'm sure Japanese is no exception. Not that Nihonjin shouldn't try to exorcise the worst but when the English language is going through the same process, speakers of English shouldn't throw any stones (a phrase whose origin is from the Bible but no evangelistic effort was intended)

[JimDunlop2]

[osakajojo]

my dad always said "off to the salt mines"


as a child we played "smear the q u e e r" and it wasn't till I was years older that I learned that q u e e r was not a nice term. But then a few years ago the "Q u e e r Eye for the Strait Guy" became popular and suddenly it seems OK to use the term. I saw that there is now a "Q u e e r Eye"podcast.
Another name of the same game was called "tag the f a g" and years later I learn that is another name for a cigarette in England.
(I guess they are still considered bad to say since I can't type the words on this form without using a space!)

Did anyone see the Seinfeld episode where he was dating a Native American and kept catching himself using derogatory terms the whole time they dated like buying tickets from a scalper or saying he isn't an indian giver or getting Elain a wooden indian from a cigar shop?

when I was young growing up in Texas, I thought "Yankee" was a bad word because I always heard people refering to those damn Yankees! It wasn't untill I moved to Japan that I started hearing people refering to me as a Yankee because I am from America. I actually take offence to that because I don't think of myself as a Yank. I think of myself as a Texan.

one more thing...does anyone remember when Rhett Butler said "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" in Gone With the Wind? That was the first time damn was spoken in a movie. It used to be a bad word but now I am able to type it on here but can't type f a g or q u ee r.

[markle]

My old mans favourite was 'Get ya cotton pickin' fingers off that!' no doubt completely oblivious to the real meaning of the words. Again it goes to show that words are pretty meaningless if they lack the sentiment that goes with them.
Japanese are often criticized for using terminology that could be construed one way but are in fact not a reflection of any demeaning sentiment but are just that, words.

[malcoml]

Political correctness is destroying our communication!

Think of these four words: Death, garbage, quotas and women each of these words offends certain groups. They have been replaced with terms like negative patient outcome, post-consumer waste material, educational equity and people of gender. Does anyone really understand exactly what these terms mean? At the very least each of them are open to discussion.

[markle]

[Captain Onigiri]

Here is my favourite story about political correctness. A friend of mine went to the Episcopal seminary at Yale. He said that in the copy room there were two recycle boxes. One was labeled 'white paper' and the other was labeled 'coloured paper'. Someone (and I suspect my friend) took it upon himself to re-label the one box as 'Paper of Colour' as a joke. The university issued a official apology in case anyone had been offended by the previous label.

But back to the topic at hand which was racism inherent in language. No wait, I think it was Japan's bid for permanent UN Security Council membership. I've forgotten.

This discussion keeps bringing back a trip I made to the Toy and Miniature Museum in Kansas City. http://www.umkc.edu/tmm/ One room was all blackface dolls from the fifties and before. Some were in mint condition and some had obviously received much juvenile attention in their day. There was Mammey dolls and baby dolls that had white buttons for eyes. The room had next to no signage and someone said that the museum was at a loss as to how to introduce the exhibit. My first response was to be really creeped out from having all these blackface dolls staring out at you. (but less creeped out than in the clown doll room) Then I couldn't help but have a gut reaction about the racism involved. But some of these dolls obviously had been carried around by some long gone little African-American girl until they had nearly fallen apart. How could that doll be racist? But then again, I thought of the dolls I had seen outside the blackface room. The porcelain ones with golden locks and painstakenly painted with the prettiest dress possible. There weren't any like that in the blackface room. I don't think there was a black doll of beauty until Black Barbie. I left completely bewildered and unable to draw any conclusions and I understood why the museum was having such trouble with signage. Racism becomes so ingrained in our culture and language, it's hard to peel it away and leave just the culture.

[AndyH]

So, back to the original topic: Is Japan's less-than-perfect attitude about other races a justifiable reason to deny the country a voice on the UN Security Council?

[fizayded]

Give me a break, you say that Japan should be denied a UNSC seat because some people like to buy dolls? Couldnt you come up with a better reason than that? How about the case of the S. Korean woman who was denied a manager position in a Tokyo hospital cause she wasnt Japanese? (I dont have a link but this was in the Yomiuri awhile back). Ive had plenty of being snubbed, insulted or ignored since Ive been here, but I will spare sharing those for some other time.

Yes, a lot of Japan is racist and so is America, big deal? Is there any country that isnt? Japan is a very important contributor to the world and I think if they want to be on the UNSC then let them. Not like the United Nations is totally doing its job anyway. I know they do alot but still there can be more that can be done, like Sudan. And is Japans biggest issue fixing the post office?

As far as I see it, if I live here a long time, and get my Japanese perfect, I still wont be considered part of this society by many. So why try?

[JimDunlop2]

[6810]

[AndyH]

But then, by your logic, Jim, none of the countries currently on the UNSC should be there. Perhaps the UN should just dissolve the security council and have a free-for-all, since the SC members have to put their own affairs in order before they dictate foreign policy!
Maybe the US should vacate its SC seat until they make more progress on racial issues! How do you think Cherokees feel to see Andrew Jackson, the president responsible for their genocide, on the $20 bill? Why aren't Americans all upset about that? And why aren't more Americans up in arms over the way Arabs and Muslims were targeted after 9/11?
Yes, the issue of racism is serious. But I really don't think it is the most important issue in the world. If a famine isn't averted or a conflict between two countries doesn't get resolved before the fighting starts, just because somebody blows this issue out of proportion, is it really benefitting anybody?
Another issue to look at are the motives of those who are advocating that Japan be barred from the Security Council (besides naive people like Bearcat): China has, in its long-term strategic doctrine, the belief that they will eventually go to war with the US. This is not merely my opinion, but fact. They know Japan is an important ally of the US in East Asia, and to politically isolate Japan is, in their view, a way to weaken US influence in the region. And of course, Korean nationalists advocate the same, mainly out of blind hatred for Japan and the US.
I would urge others to look at the big picture. The UN Security Council has a lot of power in the world: it was the UN Security Council who, in 1950, authorized the multinational effort to force North Korea out of South Korea (The USSR foolishly boycotted that particular meeting, in protest over the SC's recognition of Taiwan over the PRC as representing China).
Brazil, India, Germany, and Japan are all countries which because of their population, history of international involvement, or economic influence, have an important role to play in the world. To grant them a seat on the UN Security Council only serves to strenghten the UN body as a whole, and have it more accurately reflect the current reality, which is very different than in 1945.

[JimDunlop2]

Andy, I don't believe for an instant that Japan as a permanent UNSC member would restore any sort of "balance of power" on the council, as you seem to indicate it might. Membership in the UNSC does not prevent member nations from going to war with each other.

As I've said, current permanent members need not be removed necessarily because of their own issues, as you are probably right -- you wouldn't be able to have a security council. But perhaps there should be a way to remove a country from it given appropriate circumstances.

However doesn't it make the problem a lot worse by expanding the council to include more permanent members whose part-time hobby is ignoring UN resolutions and whose concept of "internationalism" is so severely distorted?

[AndyH]

Good point, Jim, but I don't necessarily advocate a "restoration" of any "balance of power". I believe that more non-European cultures should be represented at this level, but as an American and Westerner, I believe it is in my interest to have Japan on the council.
I don't necessarily disagree with you regarding countries whose "hobby" is to ignore UN resolutions (and by this, I assume you mean Japan), and to be honest, it really annoys me how the US ignores the UN when it's not in the interest of the US government's policies. I won't even try to defend Japan on this.
But, WHAT KIND of resolutions are being violated? I feel far less comfortable with a country like China, who has occupied Tibet, made cross-border incursions into Vietnam, and threated nearly all of it's neighbors than I do with a country that treats non-Japanese residents like second-class people.
You are correct in your statement that membership in the UNSC does not prevent member nations from going to war with each other, but it DOES give those members political clout. I'd feel a lot more comfortable with more clout for a far-from-perfect ally of my country like Japan, which at least tries to make some positive contributions to the rest of the world, then I do with the increasing power of its neighbor, which has every right to persue prosperity for its citizens, but has given everybody just cause for concern.
When it comes to issues of global security, I'm a realist. We won't find anything close to perfection in the world, but we do need to look at the big picture.