The Japanese woke up one day and found black gunships lying off their coasts and threatening to devastate their cities. That is ultimately why they use bits of English (and other European languages) now, though the process by which one thing led to another is long and complex and does not really lend itself to a simple black and white morality tale (though the Black Ships certainly were immoral).

However, Japanese games use Christian-derived symbolism with no actual Christian intent. Japanese people marry in mock Christian churches that have no religious significance. Does this harm Christianity?

I am sure there are Christians who would object and in a way I can see their point. But essentially one culture as filtered through another becomes something else.

If someone is actually being oppressed then that is the problem, I would have said, not the tendency of cultures to adopt influences from other cultures, which most of the time lose their original meaning in the process.

It seems to me that the real danger to cultures is the opposite. It is not when non-Christian cultures play with Christianity or Western cultures play with Shinto that any real harm is done. It is when one culture tries to force its religion or ideology in earnest upon another.

[Zgarbas]

Quote:Does this harm Christianity?

What is Christianity to begin with?

I think it doesn't because Christianity is so widespread, and such a great part of dominant discourse. Moreover, Christianity arrived in Japan via Western missionaries, so it was not Japanese people randomly hearing about it and copying the style. Western-style weddings have become the universal image of what a 'real' wedding looks like, which is why they're doing it. It is a form of cultural appropriation, but its impact is considerably lowered by such factors.

On the other hand, Shinto is a minority as far as global culture is concerned, and the process to lower the religious importance of Shinto was intentional as part of the attempt to Westernise Japan. A Japanese person will not be disturbed by a Christian praying at a Shinto shrine because it is not really considered a 'real' prayer anymore. I consider that to be an effect of the long-term attempt to downplay non-Western religions rather than a natural occurence. I was quite surprised to see a Christian Japanese refuse to pray at the shrine we were at, even though it is quite a valid decision to make; surely no one would have to explain why they are not joining their Muslim friend in their prayer if they were Christian.

Quote:If someone is actually being oppressed then that is the problem, I would have said, not the tendency of cultures to adopt influences from other cultures, which most of the time lose their original meaning in the process.

I agree with this, but again, cultural appropriation is not about a culture naturally being influenced by the other, it's when a dominant culture takes in various aspects of it in a manner that downplays its significance. And, in the case of Western discourse, this is later broadcasted to the world. For example, I had the idea of a sexy Chinese girl in the Chinese dress long before I had met my first Chinese person; it was appropriated and distributed by Western media to the point where it has become a stereotype which goes across cultures, and it is not assimilated so much as it is considered 'exotic' and fetishised.

Of course, it is not black and white, which is the problem, I think. Cultural appropriation is a complex thought, and black and white interpretations is what leads to the girl that bothered CreepyAF, as well as to the more extreme reactions against the idea.

Yes I see what you mean about the "dominant discourse". I have seen it in Japan, where news from an international perspective tends to take on the vocabulary and slant of the "Western Perspective".

Interestingly it is a little like "cultural assimilation" in itself because I don't get the impression that most Japanese people (or other Asians) really mean by that vocabulary exactly what it was designed to mean by its makers. But I do agree that they are rather forced to use it.

It always strikes me as a little odd because I find the Western Perspective of this world really rather unfathomable. I was going to say senseless which is probably wrong as it is a value judgement I am unqualified to make. But it makes no sense to me at any rate.

I find it interesting that in terms of pop-cultural influence in the world, I would say Japan ranks only below America. Quite a long way below, but is the only other serious contender. Whereas, say 50 years ago the world's imagination was dominated by American (and to a much lesser extent European) productions.

Which is not at all an argument about cultural assimilation one way or another, but rather interesting, I think.

More on topic, your point about the "image" of Chinese people is interesting. Interesting also that I cannot imagine a Chinese person who was not heavily Westernized being surprised or bothered by it. Which I think is an example of how non-Western people do adopt Western vocabulary without really assimilating the Western point of view. The whole debate is one that is takes place among very Western-minded people both for and against.

Or again, perhaps Asian people are "assimilating" it in precisely the sense of "cultural assimilation" - that is de-naturing it by seeing it through their own eyes and not the eyes of the originators.

In which case cultural assimilation on the part of Asian people becomes a strong protection against the (intended or unintended) "cultural imperialism" of the West.

For the most part I would say that it is intended, but that Western people are so sure that their base view of the world (which of course equally includes the "liberal" and the "conservative" views on this thread) is the only right one, that it does not strike them as imperialism but simply "teaching the truth".

[Zgarbas]

Ah, of course. My own discourse is heavily Western-influenced, thanks to the Internet and literature. I don't identify as a Westerner, though, and have never been more than a tourist in the West .

To me, it's more of a matter of having the words to express the ideas in a different manner, rather than the feeling itself arising from Western discourse. When I was introduced to postcolonial thought (beyond the obvious 'wtf is this' and 'isn't this nitpicking' as a knee-jerk reaction) what struck me was not that some dude was preaching to me about how to feel about being told what to think (I can see why it can come across as such), it was the fact that there are things that bothered me, and that are common complains that I hear from the people around, but usually they are expressed in a more bitter or aggressive fashion, and tend to be more direct. Cultures of resistance arose before they had dedicated academic fields to aid their ideology, after all.

The manner in which cultural appropriation is discussed is heavily-rooted in Western discourse, but reading non-Western literature and opinions the fact that such actions bother people is quite obvious - we just use fancier terms and have more time and funding to analyse and be bothered by it. I think that Chinese girls rather mind their long history of being fetishised, sold off, forced into prostitution for foreign clients, etc., but of course they won't be writing forum posts about the deeper implications of global discourse.

Zgarbas Wrote:Ah, of course. My own discourse is heavily Western-influenced, thanks to the Internet and literature. I don't identify as a Westerner, though, and have never been more than a tourist in the West .

To me, it's more of a matter of having the words to express the ideas in a different manner, rather than the feeling itself arising from Western discourse.

...

I think that Chinese girls rather mind their long history of being fetishised, sold off, forced into prostitution for foreign clients, etc., but of course they won't be writing forum posts about the deeper implications of global discourse.

Yes I feel like a tourist everywhere, but more in the West where nothing makes any sense to me.

Of course anyone would object to being sold or forced into prostitution. That is wicked and cruel. It was a teensy bit cunning of you to slip "fetishized" into the list as if it were the same thing. It isn't, and frankly I don't think many Chinese girls really care one way or the other about how some Western people picture their entire people. They may have adopted some Western vocabulary but they are not hanging on the West's every delusion as if it mattered. They do have a culture and a life of their own.

You may argue that one thing leads to the other, and for all I know it may. But we are in much deeper waters there. Humans have been doing horrible, cruel exploitative things to each other for millennia as far as I can see. Blaming it on this or that current cultural phenomenon is... well it would be nice if it were just that, wouldn't it?

Personally I think the vocabulary of current Western discourse is a very dangerous friend, however one intends to tame and use it. But that's just me, and I have no solutions for your world. So probably I shouldn't really put in my two yen in the first place!

[Zgarbas]

No no, your two yen are much appreciated!

I originally meant it to say that I have only visited the west for a few weeks and thus have not physically interacted with it in a meaningful manner. How come you feel like a tourist everywhere?

Hmm, of course they are of different levels, but isn't fetishisation a driving force? Would people be getting mail-order Asian brides if they weren't exotic and linked to an orientalist perspective which sees them as better brides? Would the image of the sexy Chinese girl arise would it not be backed by a history of exploitation? Would they be exploited in equal measures were they not fetishised? I obviously do not have the answer, but think that they are strongly related. It is of course part of a greater problem, which is why so much accent is placed on deconstructing social phenomena and analysing each factor.

I am sure you've met more Chinese girls than I have, and from a more varied group. I for one have gotten quite protective of my colleagues, since whenever I tell people back in Romania about them they instantly ask me if I've gotten lucky with them, and people from my gaijin bubble usually ask to be introduced to my Chinese/Japanese female friends. Obviously, they themselves are not asked about that directly, so it would have a lighter direct reaction from them, even though *they* are the ones affected by the image. I didn't really think much of the sexy asian stereotype before moving to Japan, as it was not necessary for me to give it too much thought. I am sure that Chinese girls who do not need to interact with foreigners and are in a position where they are safe from exploitation do not need to give it much thought, and have no reason to care about it. I can see why approaching the topic as an outsider can be seen as demeaning, but I find that input from outsiders can be invaluable at times.

cophnia61 Wrote:I think that girl is the racist one because she treats the japanese language and culture as something "other", and talks about Japanese people and Japanese culture as "them..." and "their..." like if she is talking about aliens... If you were practising Russian language I bet she had nothing to say about it ._.

Exactly.
It's funny how those who are always up in arms protesting and pointing out 'racism' everywhere are almost invariably incredibly racist themselves.
'Affirmative action' is another classic example of this. People are looking to apply laws differently, based upon someone's race. If that's not racism, then the word has no meaning.

[Zgarbas]

To be fair, the word 'racism' doesn't really have any meaning as there is only one race. It's just a catchphrase and used a far more general manner than its complex structure would require, because otherwise it would not penetrate mainstream discourse. However, that is just semantics.

Affirmative action is not a different application of the law so much as a compensation for people's lack of opportunities, and is adjusted to ethnicity, income, area, etc. in a manner that is not restricted to colour. The main beneficiaries of affirmative action in the US are white.

Quote:The problem with this myth is that it uses the same word -- discrimination -- to describe two very different things. Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does. The logic of affirmative action is no different than the logic of treating a nutritional deficiency with vitamin supplements. For a healthy person, high doses of vitamin supplements may be unnecessary or even harmful, but for a person whose system is out of balance, supplements are an efficient way to restore the body's balance.

Source

Zgarbas Wrote:Cultural appropriation of Japan is usually called out when people do sexy kimono modifications or dress up as geishas or mikos... though it should be mentioned that in Japan you can legitimately go to certain spots and do the geisha get-up, and mikos have lost their religious signification and are now just a plain job uniform.

How is this any different to the Japanese fashion models/whatever, wearing a modified version of 19th century western formal wear? Seeing some 18 year old girl wearing a fake euopean style crown or tiny top hat in Japan is no different to a westerner wearing a modified kimono or Japanese formal wear.
Not once have I ever heard a westerner complain about non-westerners use of our culture, yet the reverse seems not to be the case.
If what someone from overseas decides to wear is enough to denigrate your culture, then I suspect that you haven't been putting much value in it in the first place.

Zgarbas Wrote:Affirmative action is not a different application of the law so much as a compensation for people's lack of opportunities, and is adjusted to ethnicity, income, area, etc. in a manner that is not restricted to colour. The main beneficiaries of affirmative action in the US are white

It doesn't matter who it advantaged or disadvantaged by the color of their skin, or by which chromosome they were born with. Discrimination entrenched law is detestable. We are either all equal in the eyes of the law or we are not.

I don't doubt that women have gained from it at all. I've seen it happen. About 5 years ago, my company offered to pay for a qualification (the same as mine) for free, and pay the successful applicant to study, but only if you were a woman.

The fact that sexism was so openly exhibited and practiced is just jaw dropping.

The successful applicant completed the training, but failed in her career and was made redundant this year.

I am afraid I have to admit that I hadn't even heard about the "sexy Asian" stereotype before this thread.

I am not in the least questioning that exists. I am just very out of touch and really don't know much except the few things I have come in contact with and the odd thing I read. I had always assumed that men wanted Asian brides mainly because they couldn't find wives at home. Being asexual I don't tend to read much on "sex" related topics.

As for me, I just haven't had a lot of contact with people outside a very small circle. The only place I have really interacted in "society" (a very small segment of it but still "society") is Japan, though I have met some Chinese people too. I have lived mostly in countries where I don't speak the language, or speak it very poorly. I don't expect people to believe I am an alien doll, but whatever level you want to take it on, it is how I am.

I seem to have what i call a "teflon effect", which prevents me from absorbing much culture or making real contact. This has been much, much less in Japan though, so Japan has really been a kind of transformative experience to me.

Anyway that is one reason I tend not to get involved in discussions like this, because at some point one has to explain one's perspective (because really what I think makes little sense without it) and then people think "oh that's just strange, or untrue". And in any case these things really aren't my business. It is not as if I hold strong views one way or the other. But I sometimes find concepts interesting.

I am kind of protective of Japan and hope it won't get overrun by Western thinking ("liberal" or "conservative"). But I also know that if Western forces (and I kind of mean currents in the aethyr as much as any physical and deliberate force though economic force certainly plays a big role) can overrun Japan they will, and if they can't they won't, and nothing anyone says will make much difference either way.

I always think that the language barrier protects people so much more effectively and importantly than those little white masks!

If I am reading what you write correctly, you are saying that your friends have such a predatory attitude to people because they are Asian? That is kind of depressing isn't it?

RawrPk Wrote:As someone who is another Asian nationality, this situation doesn't make it easier. If anything, I am accused of "abandoning" my own culture to try to be "another Asian". Especially since I'm not fluent in the language of my culture. I'm sure there are others who might be able to relate to this.

I've had things sort of like this said to me when I was starting out learning the language, although since I'm half-white, and generally white-looking, the comments were more like "What, French or Spanish isn't good enough for you?" or "You think you're Japanese or something?". Annoying, but they gave up around the time I turned the interface language of my computer, phone, and other devices to Japanese.^-^

Hmm, There are things in both Japanese culture and American culture which puzzle me, and I've observed after studying Japanese for so long, that I seem to be more bicultural in my thinking patterns compared to some others in my neighborhood. Most people where I live are monolingual, and they seem really impressed whenever they see I know Japanese, so basically, after I got to a decent level of understanding in the language, I got way more positive remarks about my Japanese than negative ones. Things were tough at the beginning though.

AussieTrooper Wrote:If what someone from overseas decides to wear is enough to denigrate your culture, then I suspect that you haven't been putting much value in it in the first place.

This was kind of my point too. I think if people's confidence in their own culture was so weak that the antics of some gaijin dressing up might worry them, the culture really would be in trouble.

However I don't think that is the case at all. I don't think Japanese or Chinese people care, or mostly know, what foreigners do in these areas and when they do know they just think it amusing if anything.

The whole "cultural assimilation" thing is a game gaijin play among themselves, officiously getting offended on other peoples' behalf, which is kind of patronizing to put it in the kindest light.

ryuudou Wrote:It's not too surprising that someone with a name making fun of Jews would claim that racist is a buzzword.

It's racist that you assume that my name is making fun of Jews (or am I just a dirty whitey that hates everyone that's not white? Or Christian, despite the fact that I'm athiest?). In fact, it's an rp name I came up with by messing around with syllables when I was somewhere around eight years old (probably the only things I knew about Jews at the time were from what little I knew of the Bible... and that they have big noses).
It sounds nothing like 'shalom', the 'o' bit is similar to the sound in 'coal' (though a shorter 'o' is acceptable if you hate enunciating), the 'lum' bit is like 'uhm' (the thinking sound) with an 'l' stuck on the front, it just looks kinda similar to the way we write 'shalom' in English (and again, I didn't know this word when I came up with the name).

By the way, if you're going to complain that I'm using strawmans and then use one of your own, then
what part of 'don't insult other users is unclear?

The gender wage gap (as a systematic oppressive movement by the 'patriarchy' (lol, not a very good patriarchy)) doesn't exist. Bias in interviews and applications does exist though (because humans are involved), I won't claim that it doesn't, but clearly there are ways to fix it that don't plainly reverse the bias.
I don't have tons of links, but I'm sure your infinite linking can find them: the difference in pay scale between men and women is primarily due to the number of hours worked and the tendency for women not to negotiate pay.
Perhaps a better way of saying that women are considered for pay the same as men is this: it's completely illegal not to; if they weren't, and there were real proof of it, then there's be some huge lawsuits going on right now (considering they have ongoing suits about drugs causing hemorrhaging when the drug says on the bottle that it can cause hemorrhaging, I'm sure every law firm in the country would take up such a juicy case).

The fact that you think I'm racist (that my use of 'qualified' instantly means 'white male') is far more telling of your prejudice than anything I've said. I've studied and worked with many competent people of all races and sexes (I was behind a Russian girl and a black man with a full time job and kids in my circuits classes), however, I don't think you should hire someone because of what they are. That's just so screwed up in a society that has only just gotten to where people are seen as people; we're shooting straight over to the other side where everyone is so different that you have to treat every single one as a special snowflake.

Another benefit women have: getting lighter sentences in criminal cases.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11...74742.html
The paper cited:
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002

Might I add that the above is comparing similar cases as opposed to the averages of all sentencing (like the 'wage gap').

Diversity quotas in fields with large population biases do not result in optimal hiring. When the people hiring are told to bias towards women (in the case of IT), but the majority of applicants are men, in order to fill their female hires quota, they have to choose their employees from a small portion of the applicants, not based on ability, but on sex. This is wrong. Blind reviews of applications are a good idea (a lot of companies use these systems anyway, because of the sheer number of applications they have to filter, but there is still room for improvement in secondary or tertiary screening), but you shouldn't force companies to hire disproportionate numbers of a particular demographic just because that's your perverted idea of justice.
The ideal system would sort the best applicants and should, assuming men and women show similar distribution of skill over their respective population, produce a number of male hires proportional to the number of male applicants and a number of female hires proportional to the number of female applicants.
This ideal system isn't likely to ever exist, so a better way to suggest quotas, if they must exist, is to make it so that the percentage of hires is equal to that of the applicants; essentially, force it to be as close to the 'ideal' as possible. While this is also a flawed system, in that it'd still unfairly force some people through or hold some people back in either demographic, it is far better than the unrealistic ideal populations that are currently being pushed.

I'm not very good at searching for research papers, so I suggest watching the videos done by TL;DR for a better analysis and actual links to actual papers. Our opinions on these issues are usually similar (not always, though).

RE: 'Cultural appropriation'
It has no real meaning, but as for the idea behind it (that cultures should only mix when everything is understood perfectly, which is impossible):
I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter how you depict foreign cultures in things that aren't meant to be factual (that doesn't mean you can't be judged for it, but judgement is from individuals, not a system); as previously mentioned, Japanese culture plays around with Christianity and its symbols quite a bit (I've heard that Japanese Christians actually know the difference between the pop-culture and actual Christianity (a darn sight more than most Christians in the States), but I've never actually met one, so...); some might say that this is incredibly offensive to Christians, but most rational people will see that it's harmless (so they don't understand Christian weddings or anything else about it, so what?). I don't care, but I'm not Christian, so...
And their depictions of Americans as (blond haired, blue-eyed, big nosed, big jawed) loud people who can't understand the mood and make weird jokes doesn't bother me one bit, because why should it? No one is making business or government policies based on these stereotypes (a little different than culture, but it's basically the same idea, a general uninformed representation of something).
Do I cringe when I see poor representations of samurai or ninja? Yes, the same as I do when I see poor representations of knights or frontiersmen. It's a cringe from knowing that these things aren't accurate, but there's no ill will in it, so it doesn't matter. Entertainment doesn't have to be pure fact unless it claims to be.
And what's the difference between poor representations of samurai or ninja in Japanese productions as opposed to foreign productions? What's the difference between poor representations of knights and frontiersmen in Western productions as opposed to Japanese productions? Objectively, none.

There is no ownership of cultures, it's an immaterial thing that spreads with human contact; the only way to prevent 'contamination' is to shut the community off from the world, and that's just stupid. Culture has a source, but its only container is the end of communications, and in our world, there is practically no end on Earth. It's influence fades with distance from the source.

EDIT: rephrasing some poorly written sentences

EDIT:

CureDolly Wrote:The whole "cultural assimilation" thing is a game gaijin play among themselves, officiously getting offended on other peoples' behalf, which is kind of patronizing to put it in the kindest light.

Agreed. I don't think I've ever heard an actual foreigner complain about these things; the closest to that being second or third generation immigrants, who probably feel cheated out of their parents' or grandparents' culture (why should you feel cheated when you get to have two perspectives? Seems envious to me, whose lineage has been in the Americas pretty much since they were first colonized). Or maybe they hold it on a pedestal because it makes them feel special, but I prefer to think that it's not such a depraved reason.

[Zgarbas]

CureDolly Wrote:If I am reading what you write correctly, you are saying that your friends have such a predatory attitude to people because they are Asian? That is kind of depressing isn't it?

Why do you think so many Westerners come to Japan in hopes of finding a Japanese girlfriend? It is depressing, and that's the point.

Quote:The fact that sexism was so openly exhibited and practiced is just jaw dropping.

How do you feel when it is practiced in everyday life in a manner that does not directly affect you?

Well I knew a lot of Westerners come to Japan and marry Japanese people. And I understand that some of them are very happily married. I wasn't really aware of that attitude. I guess it isn't all of them and I hope not the majority, but it is depressing that it exists at all. And from what you say it is somewhat widespread.

But then Western people in general do seem to have the strangest attitudes to just about everything. You can't watch five minutes of Western television without seeing that. In fact, I can't watch five minutes of Western television at all.

Zgarbas Wrote:

poblequadrat Wrote:"whiteness" doesn't really exist in europe (outside nazi circles) so i'm probably missing something.

Doesn't it? Whiteness is a pretty huge deal where I'm from. Everyone who's the least bit dark starts getting bullied for being a gipsy.

Racism exists and is a growing concern, but the concept of "whiteness" doesn't. "Lol white people!!!!" doesn't make any sense in Europe, by which I mean race relations in Europe aren't egalitarian at all, but they're significantly different to those in the USA. Literally the only people to talk about "white people", "brown people" or "the black community" in Europe are nazis - the left wing would rather talk about the rights of migrant workers or use geographic identifiers such as "the Paris suburbs", which isn't an euphemism but an indicator that our race problems came to be in a different way. If whiteness is a huge deal where you're from, then I'm going to guess you're from Eastern Europe where crypto- and not-so-crypto fascism seems to have become mainstream (correct me if my guess is wrong).

[Zgarbas]

What about gypsies?

Edit: While I am, in fact, from Eastern Europe, I think that the discussion about them is pretty much at a continent-wide level. In Romania they are not talked about, so much as ignored or actively hated.

Edit because I just remembered: I think that the moment I became aware of my whiteness was in Germany. I met up with a friend who lived there, and was telling him about how I was really impressed with how helpful and nice people were to strangers, and he seemed surprised by this; he'd never had that happen to him, and had rather quite a negative experience as far as fitting in was concerned. Then he looked at me and said 'maybe it's because you look German?'. Indeed, I'm blue-eyed and fair-skinned, whereas he is quite dark (apparently enough that he often had people ask him if he's from the Middle East). Perhaps it was simply a matter of luck, but it did get me thinking.

There are very few Roms where I'm from so maybe that's why there isn't any sort of active scene against them - in fact I live in a neighbourhood with a traditional Rom presence and it's just like a colourful local tradition. These are the "old Roms" - there is another Rom community that arrived in the 60's and people are sort of afraid of messing with them, so they're maybe more discriminated against, but at any rate it isn't a big deal. I understand it is a big problem elsewhere, though.

But even so, I think you're missing the point. My point was the US left is very community identity oriented and "whiteness" has associations (middle class blandness, stereotypical suburban life) that simply don't exist in Europe and the political meaning of which is hard to grasp in the European context. The concept of a "very white suburb" is very descriptive in the US whereas in Europe it's hard to know what it's supposed to mean - as I said, the concept of whiteness only pops up when there are far-right attitudes ("let's kick them out!") - the rest of the time it's more about the chronological strata of migrant workers and the places they settled in.

We probably agree more than it might seem, though, because it's not like I'm trying to deny Europe is an increasingly racist place.

[Zgarbas]

Ah no, I didn't even assume we were disagreeing. Of course, most ethnic groups in Europe are not really separated by colour so much as by other factors, which lessens the impact that colour plays in mainstream discourse, so I understand where you're getting at. I agree that race is not actively made as big of a problem in Europe, and people tend to focus on its associated features rather than on colour in itself; it's just that I think that despite the lack of active discourse, it is still an active force, and we are simply lucky to be unaware of it. Antitzigan discourse is simply the one I am most familiar with, and though people focus on attire and behaviour these days, colour was a driving force towards their historical segregation, and is still something that is used as a means of 'picking out' gypsies in the crowd. Few people will actively state that their dislike comes from the colour of their skin, but I think it's still an important factor that we simply use more subconsciously.

I'm not sure if I can explain it properly, sorry if this post doesn't make much sense.

Zgarbas Wrote:Hmm, of course they are of different levels, but isn't fetishisation a driving force? Would people be getting mail-order Asian brides if they weren't exotic and linked to an orientalist perspective which sees them as better brides?

Yes

Quote:Would the image of the sexy Chinese girl arise would it not be backed by a history of exploitation?

Yes

Quote:Would they be exploited in equal measures were they not fetishised?

I think they are easily exploited due to the economic situations surrounding the countries.

To elaborate a bit, on the short answers. I don't think things like mail order brides would be nearly as prevalent if the countries that the girls come from, were on a level comparable to the US. However, the fetishization of them would still be there. If the history and the stereotypes that have been built up around these cultures were different, the level of fetishization would also be different. BUT, there would still be men/women that would have a fetish. That fetish would exist simply because that ethnicity would be exotic to them. I think its important to remember that there is probably a biological imperative that exists to drive this as well.

Its important to also remember that East Asia isn't the only place that mail order brides come out of. There are organizations in Russia and Eastern Europe as well, and that's for white girls, not asians. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that organizations also exist in Africa as well. You look hard enough, there are regions of the world where a certain ethnicity is going to be exotic and probably sought after by a certain percentage of the population there.

AussieTrooper Wrote:

cophnia61 Wrote:I think that girl is the racist one because she treats the japanese language and culture as something "other", and talks about Japanese people and Japanese culture as "them..." and "their..." like if she is talking about aliens... If you were practising Russian language I bet she had nothing to say about it ._.

Exactly.
It's funny how those who are always up in arms protesting and pointing out 'racism' everywhere are almost invariably incredibly racist themselves.

Except this is not true at all, and is an unfair generalization. People who care about racism are the bad guys, but not the racists? Right. This is not related to you but I actually see genuine neo-nazis try this tactic a lot. The whole "pointing out racism makes YOU the racist!" thing. Reminds me of a quote:

"But like all bigotry, the most potent component of racism is frame-flipping -- positioning the bigot as the actual victim. So the gay do not simply want to marry; they want to convert our children into sin. The Jews do not merely want to be left in peace; they actually are plotting world take-over. And the blacks are not actually victims of American power, but beneficiaries of the war against hard-working whites. This is a respectable, more sensible, bigotry, one that does not seek to name-call, preferring instead change the subject and straw man." —Ta-Nehisi Coates

AussieTrooper Wrote:'Affirmative action' is another classic example of this. People are looking to apply laws differently, based upon someone's race.

If the government puts a group of people 300 years behind another group of people, with laws that destroyed any realistic chances at social/educational/economic success until a mere 1964, then it is the job of the government to help that community get back to a functional state.

If you get three chicken strips and your brother gets one chicken strip, and your dad gives your brother two more to even out the plates, you would look like a spoiled brat if you started crying about not getting any. You want two more chicken strips? Sure you can have them if you re-live as a black person for 18 years and take a significant amount of your family's wealth away.

Edited

sholum Wrote:The gender wage gap (as a systematic oppressive movement by the 'patriarchy' (lol, not a very good patriarchy)) doesn't exist.

sholum Wrote:the difference in pay scale between men and women is primarily due to the number of hours worked

Again even when you control for hours worked and field the wage gap still exists.

sholum Wrote:Bias in interviews and applications does exist though (because humans are involved), I won't claim that it doesn't

You say that you claim that it does (at least after being shown the proof). Despite this you were extremely intellectually dishonest when you angrily ranted against diversity initiatives while ignoring the fact that they exist in the first place is because of the measurable bias that women and minorities often face in industries that they were historically not allowed in.

sholum Wrote:but clearly there are ways to fix it that don't plainly reverse the bias.

Again no bias is being reversed. As I said before I see this from time to time: a disgruntled person on the internet complaining about a company hiring "feminists and uppity women and darn black people and transgenders" instead of "the best for the job" and claiming that they're effectively firing poor disenfranchised white men for their race/gender (not true at all).

sholum Wrote:Perhaps a better way of saying that women are considered for pay the same as men is this: it's completely illegal not to; if they weren't, and there were real proof of it

They often are not. You can't "prove" what's inside someone's head but it definitely happens. You will always turn a blind eye to it (it's easy to ignore something that doesn't affect you) but the results speak. The same bias that makes people in male dominated fields see equally qualified women (even with 100% identical applications) as "less competent" is the same bias that makes them earn less and be less likely to be promoted long term.

sholum Wrote:the fact that you think my use of 'qualified' instantly means 'white male'

Oh you said it. You just didn't say it directly. The idea that a more diverse team is a less competent team is inherently racist/sexist idea fueled by the belief that white men are the best for the job.

You will often witness this kind of thinking from angry guys on the internet (who are often shitty/mediocre coders that can't handle a little competition) who are mad that women and minorities are now challenging them for positions that they couldn't 40 years.

sholum Wrote:Another benefit women have: getting lighter sentences in criminal cases.

This sentencing disparity is a result of traditional gender roles — something feminism directly opposes. The reason that women get lighter sentences than men is the same reason women are often assumed incompetent in the workplace and less likely to be promoted. The sexism that hurts women often hurts men. Conservative older men with traditional views are the ones doing the sentencing. Not feminists.

sholum Wrote:but you shouldn't force companies to hire disproportionate numbers of a particular demographic just because

But it's okay when white men are in disproportionate numbers in these fields? This is not the result of "natural causes", but rather decades of policy and hiring practices that favored white men and still indirectly do. As I mentioned last time even now white men with recent criminal histories are more likely to get call backs than black men with no criminal record at all.

If you are truly against people being disproportionately represented then you should have no issues with things trending toward more fair representations. It sounds to me more like you just want to protect the status quo because you feel threatened by the increasing social mobility of women. If we keep telling them to do great things then they just might challenge you for your job.

sholum Wrote:Blind reviews of applications are a good idea

This I greatly agree with. Blind reviews would be the best way to do it. It's been shown that just having a "non-white" sounding last name can make you 50% less likely to receive call backs even with identical applications. It's been shown that just knowing that someone is a female will effect how you perceive their talents.

Please keep the discussion limited to stated opinions, not posters and their usernames

CureDolly Wrote:This was kind of my point too. I think if people's confidence in their own culture was so weak that the antics of some gaijin dressing up might worry them, the culture really would be in trouble.

However I don't think that is the case at all. I don't think Japanese or Chinese people care, or mostly know, what foreigners do in these areas and when they do know they just think it amusing if anything.

The whole "cultural assimilation" thing is a game gaijin play among themselves, officiously getting offended on other peoples' behalf, which is kind of patronizing to put it in the kindest light.

I think you've stated my point better than I did.

I agree totally! I've never met a Japanese person who cares at all about the western take on their culture. The consistent experience I get with the Japanese people is that they are initially surprised that I can speak any of it (I'm conversational, but not fluent) and then want to speak to me in Japanese as much as my ability permits. They are very happy to see interest in their culture. I think the TV show 'Youは何しに日本へ’　epitomises this welcoming attitude.

Taking mock offence on behalf of some other culture seems to be very much the trendy thing nowadays.
Patronising is indeed a kind word for it. Snobbery is also applicable.

Zgarbas Wrote:Why do you think so many Westerners come to Japan in hopes of finding a Japanese girlfriend? It is depressing, and that's the point.

As someone who is about to marry his Japanese fiancé, I find your comment downright offensive.

Who are you to judge the reasons why one person falls in love with another? During my annual ski trips, I've encountered many 'gaijin hunters' (no interest from me, but they do exist), and what about people from Africa or the Middle east who would like a western girlfriend/boyfriend. Do you find them depressing too, or is your comment racially filtered?

ryuudou Wrote:

AussieTrooper Wrote:

cophnia61 Wrote:I think that girl is the racist one because she treats the japanese language and culture as something "other", and talks about Japanese people and Japanese culture as "them..." and "their..." like if she is talking about aliens... If you were practising Russian language I bet she had nothing to say about it ._.

Exactly.
It's funny how those who are always up in arms protesting and pointing out 'racism' everywhere are almost invariably incredibly racist themselves.

Except this is not true at all, and is an unfair generalization. People who care about racism are the bad guys, but not the racists? Right.

Wrong.
ALL racism is detestable. ALL of it.
Wherever bigotry exists, there's someone trying to justify it. "Look at what they did to my people (decades/centuries ago), we need payback!" never has, and never will lead to understanding. It does nothing but entrench an 'us' and 'them' attitude.
At risk of activating Godwin's law (if it hasn't already been) you can bet your bottom dollar that there were people in Munich in 1938 complaining that the Jews had oppressed the Germans, and that laws to even this out were necessary.

What we are looking at here is a much milder version of that, but the principle is exactly the same. Once you divide society into groups of us and them, and give one an advantage over another entrenched in law, you have created a tear that no amount of politically correct double talk can heal.