@Brian WhewayToday 03:25 pm JST
Respectfully, I am curious why you would take this story at face value.
It was posted on Twitter by an anonymous use with a made-up handle name. The story does not mention a date, a time, a train line or even a city. Although (for whatever reason) it has become the basis of a news article, it is completely impossible to verify from the information we've been given.
I am not sure why we have such a low bar for believing that someone voluntarily gave up nearly 3000 dollars - money which the owner was encouraging them to take - by walking away from the interaction with the money and then deciding to put the money unsecured in a mailbox.
Life is not a movie.
If someone - particularly someone anonymous - is going to post online fantastic stories (particularly stories that do not even mention the city they took place in or any other verifiable details) then, as the saying goes, "pictures or it didn't happen".
I wish, on those rare occasions when I need someone to believe a tall tale, everyone were just as credulous as the readers of this board.
-2 ( +4 / -6 )
Seems like a bs story
I just looked up the writer's twitter bio.
She writes "all my tweets are non-fiction". "Sometimes the truth is stranger than a novel".
Must be true then mate, she said so!
11 ( +11 / -0 )
In pre-social media days, an unsubstantiated personal story like this would not have been made into a news article.
So I wonder why these days, when someone writes something on social media, it is sometimes reported as gospel truth even without evidence that it actually happened. Surely we all know that anyone can write anything they like on Twitter, including things they have made up?
Why publish it in an article that assumes the story is 100% true? I'm not sure that is good journalistic practice. How can we distinguish truth and fiction in news if news organizations simply regurgitate unsubstantiated claims which the writer may be posting to boost their social media account following?
Realistically, absent journalistic research, surely there is no way to confirm that this tale actually happened.
There are no specific names or places or train lines mentioned in the story. Even the poster "mikan" is anonymous. So what possible steps can you take to confirm the story is true before publishing it? Relaying anonymous accounts pollutes the field of online information and muddies the ground between truth and reality. How can you vouch for content lacking detail in this way?
The story reads like an entry in a "write a story in a single tweet" competition. Admittedly, the tweet is very well put together and packs a lot into 140 characters. It's pretty skillful writing, even it may well be fiction.
We simply cannot tell if this is true or not and the article should acknowledge that.
10 ( +11 / -1 )
I have not watched this movie, so don't have a view on its content one way or another. In general, I don't believe in banning art.
However, the reasoning of the watchdog is strange to say the least.
“The popularity of the series and movie suggest that its content has been deemed acceptable (by the public).”
Romans used to watch people eaten by lions.
Some Spanish people gather round to watch people kill bulls (while other Spanish people try to stop them).
If a fight starts in the street, people will gather round and watch. If they are English, they'll probably start cheering and placing bets(!)
All of this suggests that, "lots of people watched it and enjoyed it" is not a sound basis for a moral argument. ---
Now, there is one more thing that is odd. My argument above is not very original. The rebuttal of the watchdog's position is quite obvious with a second's thought. So why is a news organization reporting on the watchdog making a statement that offers such an obvious counterargument without asking them to defend or further explain themselves
In some ways it is similar to "I have not read the court documents, so I can't comment", the boilerplate statement that corporate PR departments and politicians in Japan release every time they are sued. So we never get to the bottom of anything.
This is one thing that, as a Westerner, I find strange in Japanese corporate (and political) communications. Again and again, people make statements with obvious logical flaws and clear holes in their argument. And the watching press just says "Yes, OK, thank you, let me write that down". And it never goes any further.
Again, this is not to say that I don't think Demon Slayer should be on TV.
There are arguments one could make about freedom of artistic expression and personal responsibility.
But "everyone likes it, it's all good!". It's just such a lazy defense.
It makes me wonder whether "Japan’s Broadcasting Ethics and Program Improvement Organization " is funded by the film industry itself for the sole purpose of getting complaints off their back.
0 ( +3 / -3 )
Haters gonna hate
As Tom San say, this is a strange comment. Sure, I might watch this, apparently the production is very well done and millions of people say it's great, so it wouldn't want to just dismiss it.
But at the same time it seems to be fact that some of the scenes are stolen/borrowed. For example, there is a scene where kids are playing red light green light / statues / daruma-san ga koronda, whatever you want to call it, and the losers die. Apparently this exact same idea is in the film 『神さまの言うとおり』(As the Gods Will ). I mean, that is pretty specific. I wonder if Netflix got permission to use this idea?
If you @kuruki, were the original writer of that scene, would you not want to be rewarded for your work? If something as specific as "playing red light green light, losers get killed off" is not protectable as an artistic idea, then what is? It's hardly a regular idea that anyone could just come up with.
So as Tom-san says, noticing similarities is not "hating". Words have meanings. You can't just label anyone's speech "hating" and try to shut it down. That is not how discussions work.
2 ( +6 / -4 )
Wow! What is going on here!
"Several hundred people without face masks"...
In Japan? Really? Yes, there has certainly been an anti-vax tradition / movement in this country, but anti-mask??
Before COVID, have you ever, ever, heard large groups of Japanese people objecting to face masks? During winter on the train they are (and always were) practically part of the working uniform.
So these protestors are likely either some of our American friends who hold unscientific views, or people influenced by online content from by some of our American friends who hold unscientific views.
And since non-Japanese anti-vaxxers in Japan are small in number (and unlikely to have the ability for instigating and following court proceedings in Japanese), the later seems more likely.
Scientific thinking is one of the things I love (loved?) about Japan. Even though a certain religious group has a massive influence in government, citizens don't argue over whether global warming is real, fights don't break out over teaching evolution in schools, and, while there are at least two ancient religions influencing society, people don't generally walk around suggesting that the thousands-of-year -old writings of premodern people should guide the details of modern decision-making
Japan, despite "power spots" and "blood groups" and other hokum, is (was?) by an large rational when it comes to life and death matters.
Someone, it seems, is using the internet to spread illogical thinking around the globe.
-2 ( +26 / -28 )
rainman1 - with respect, a comment on the situation back in 1992 is not too relevant. That was thirty years ago. I am interested in when @xamurai got a bank account, phone and card. Was this recently? Even as the world becomes more international, some companies are making it more difficult as time progresses, not more easy.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I guess it depends on who reviews your application and your luck.
I think that is exactly true. The issue is that arbitrary refusals are often made but no adequate system is in place to review these decision, ask why they were made and see if the refusal is fair. While, as we see above, many people do have cards, there are far too many anecdotal tales of refusals affecting people on a decent salary for this to simply be dismissed as a non-issue. The lack of transparency is part of the problem.
When a husband and wife, whose finances are obviously intertwined, apply together, and the credit card is only awarded to the Japanese party despite the foreign half of the couple earning more / having more stable employment / or even in some cases employing the Japanese spouse who got accepted while the foreign party got rejected; well in such cases something strange and opaque is obviously going on.
7 ( +8 / -1 )
You write that "Plenty of shops have asked me to apply for their card" but you did not apply because you already have enough cards. Good for you.
But I'm not sure why you wrote this - it does not mean much, if anything.
People working in a store are told to approach customers and ask them to apply. They probably have a quota.
It does not mean that your application will always be approved. As @timeon states above, sometimes the staff can actually suggest the card to you and then you can be rejected when you apply. The staff in the shop are not the one's making the approval decision.
So if you are always being asked "please apply for our card" but not actually following through on the offer, you are not really in a position to comment on what would have happened to you applications - you have no idea really.
I know this because this exact same thing happened to me. So I hope readers will listen to me and not you.
I already had a card, did not need another one, was invited to apply in a store, got talked into applying, filed my application, and then had it rejected. At the time, I was earning a least twice the average salary of a Japanese guy my age.
And like 11F, I have had the experience of applying for a card together with a Japanese partner only to see her card accepted and mine rejected. At the time too, I was earning significantly more than she was.
So, from personal experience, I would say there is absolutely racism in the processing of these applications. What is more frustrating is that people will (as usual) make excuses for racism in Japan, claiming it is not racist for whatever reason.
Yes, some foreigners have credit cards. As I said, I have one myself. So, no, not all foreigners always rejected. Now, Japan is not a "racist country" where foreigners are treated like dirt by everyone all the time. It is not like that. But that does not mean there is no issue at all.
Non-Japanese applicants are absolutely having card applications rejected for spurious reasons on a regular basis. Absolutely it is far harder to get a card if you are not Japanese.
It is happening, it is discriminatory and it is wrong.
So @Cleo, It's sad to see someone posting "nothing to see here" particularly on the basis of cards you did not even apply for that you just assumed you would get.
A foreigner with a good income can be accepted by one company and rejected by another when applying at similar times. There is little rhyme or reason to it.
Of course, if you query a rejection, no rational explanation will be forthcoming - no card company will come out and admit "yes, you are right, we are racist!".
I wonder if the Japanese government collects statistics on how Japanese and non-Japanese in similar financial positions are treated by credit card companies to see if there is any inconsistency?
I doubt they do, since racist treatment of non-Japanese nationals is something they don't care about at all.
If you are reading this and thinking of coming to live here when COVID is over, please bear this in mind in your decision making. As I said, all foreigners are not discriminated against all the time. Most people are kind. Most of the time you may be treated well.
But if someone refuses you a phone, a bank account, a credit card, an apartment, or in fact any other service because you are not a local, not one of the Japanese authorities is going to stand up and help you out because discrimination here is not illegal. Note that if you mention these struggles to your Japanese friends, they will look awkward and change the subject because they have been taught throughout their lives that discrimination and racism is something that happens to Asians in "white" countries not the other way around. They will have no idea this goes on in their own backyard and they will not want to talk about it.
Most people - and more than a few foreign residents, bizarrely (is it Stockholm syndrome?) - shut there eyes to any discrimination in Japan and are absolutely determined not to see it, recognize it or admit it ever exists.
You will also have to deal with people blaming you for your own hardship, telling you that "you don't understand Japan" and that someone the discrimination you are experiencing is in fact your own fault.
When you are not applying for a credit card or and apartment or a bank loan, Japan is a great country in many ways. So by all means come and see what it is like.
But my decades here tell me this - you will need to bring a thick skin.
5 ( +6 / -1 )
Unlike most of the other executives, both Ghosn and Kelly are illiterate in Japanese meaning they weren't able to personally familiarise themselves with Japanese securities laws, regulations, and practices.
You are practically arguing against yourself here.
I would humbly suggest that the lack of Japanese ability of Ghosn and Kelly supports my argument rather than yours.
How likely is it that two people who are illiterate in Japanese but were working within a Japanese company cooked up a scheme that violated Japanese law, documented their scheme in Japanese, and made plans for the Japanese company to make future payment based on this scheme (again, all of this work requiring Japanese language documentation, both in the present to organize it, and in the future to make the payments), all without the involvement of their Japanese-speaking counterparts?
Your argument that Ghosn and Kelly are most likely to violate the law since they are illiterate and don't understand local norms does not stand up to any scrutiny.
Leaving aside whether there delayed compensation scheme was legal or illegal, moral or immoral, they were clearly and obviously in regular communication with Japanese-speaking personnel as it was set up (assuming Kelly was even has been involved in the set up of the scheme at all - it seems this is doubtful).
Before the whistle was blown, there was an ongoing effort in Nissan to put these plans together involving multiple parties. To say this whole effort was only underway because Ghosn and Kelly "don't understand Japan" is illogical. How could the scenario as you describe it even begin to take place?
And, anyway, we know that Japanese-speaking personnel were involved since many of them to struck a deal with prosecutors to avoid punishment for their part in the matter.
These facts alone show that events could not possibly have unfolded as you describe them, as the results of a "cultural misunderstanding".
Were the Japanese citizens involved in setting up the scheme guilty of "cultural misunderstanding too"
They also seem unfamiliar with Japanese social norms seeing as they ended up alienating nearly all of their colleagues.
For all your linguistic turns of phrase and eloquence, M3M3M3, your arguments boil down to "something went wrong, it must be the foreigners fault". You language may flow well, and your responses at first sight may appear astute and persuasive, but closer examination reveals there are no supporting arguments - just suppositions and what to some people may look like blind prejudice against non-Japanese citizens.
Again, we come us back to the massive coincidence - why were the non-Japanese citizens the only ones arrested? You have offered zero convincing arguments the would dispel these concerns.
this site caters to Japanese topics and we have a fair share of people saying false and ridiculous things.
Indeed we do. That might be the only part you got right.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
You are often here defending all and everything Japanese with your comments.
Joining a criminal enterprise already in progress doesn't make one innocent
Interesting then that you state that the Japanese company Nissan was an "ongoing criminal enterprise".
Perhaps it was. I could not possibly comment.
What I do know is that two, and only two, people were arrested as a result of this fandango.
One is the "first American to be appointed to Nissan's board".
The other is Nissan's first-ever Japan boss.
I'm curious - in your mind, is the fact that the two, and only two, people arrested in connection with this "ongoing criminal enterprise" are non-Japanese just one massive and unfortunate coincidence?
Do you believe that a completely fair and unbiased legal process, free from outside interference, was followed? Again, I have no evidence that it was not. Was there racially discriminatory bias in the treatment of those involved in this matter?
I could not possibly comment, but I could understand if it looked that way to other people.
After all, we may consider that non-Japanese are in a tiny, tiny minority within Nissan.
And yet every single Japanese executive involved in this imbroglio walked away completely unpunished and unscathed.
Isn't that a little, er, strange?
18 ( +21 / -3 )
@Strangerland - I appreciate your dedication to the cause. Keep plugging away please! The lack of logical thinking (am I allowed to say that mods?) in the anti-vax arguments is astounding.
-3 ( +6 / -9 )
The magic of the event lies in its relative infrequency, surely?
2 ( +3 / -1 )
@Jay - you write that there is "spiking mental illness" in the US and contrast it with "contentment" in Japan.
I am intrigued. Did you spend a lot of time speaking in Japanese to Japanese friends in Japan - hearing their honest opinions on Japanese society - in order to reach this conclusion?
-2 ( +2 / -4 )
How fortunate that we live in a nation where the government would not dream of abusing this legislation to protect the powerful from criticism.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
I think this article needs more pictures of the escalator so we can properly get a feel for what it looks like.
4 ( +5 / -1 )
I caught some of the Urawa game on TV and it was pretty entertaining with a dramatic last minute miss that would have leveled the scores. Great goals too.
And good atmosphere too, with a small, but full, stadium.
That said, it is embarrassing though to borrow someone else's language (why English for the official name in Japanese?) and then get it wrong.
Was there no-one around to tell them that "Women Empowerment" sounds wrong in English?
(Women's Empowerment League would still be a slightly odd name, but at least it would not be an error).
I guess it is not that important in the scheme of things, but if you are going to launch a major professional competition with a big fanfare and with the main name of the competition in a foreign language, I'm not sure it does not matter at all if the name is a mistake.
Maybe we can get used to it? But it's a strange thing to have happen in the first place.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Blue - all of the is true.
There could be a default and Japan could lose money.
But we can see posters knee-jerk responding to the "$410 mil in aid" in the headline as if the money has simply been given away free of charge.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Seriously, what the heck is wrong with the government. Is just money down the drain.
> I always get so angry when Japan still does not take care of its own citizens from the Tohoku earthquake, yet spend tax money on these “saving face” type donations.
Japan will provide up to 45 billion yen ($410 million) in yen loans to Turkey.
A loan is a financial instrument whereby the principal is paid back with interest.
After the loan is repaid, which way is the net flow of money?
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Some points to consider:
This passport is for use overseas only, it does not help you get back into Japan, or avoid quarantine if you are allowed back in.
The passport is the result of the Japanese government asking for double-vaccinated Japanese to avoid quarantine and other measures so they can go about their business overseas without hinderance.
However, while (some) non-Japanese now in Japan can get out and back on the basis of this being our usual place of residence, people who are not resident in Japan are basically still stand, vaccine or no.
Think about what this means: The Japanese government is :
1) demanding that countries that already allow Japanese citizens to enter as visitors now make life even easier for those visitors who are vaccinated, exempting them from restrictions
2) Basically refusing to let double-vaccinated non-resident non-Japanese visit Japan at all.
That is why the list of countries that accept the Japanese passport is so short.
How can officials with a straight face makes such demands on other countries while imposing their own way harsher restrictions. In fact, I am amazed to see Germany, Italy and others on this list.
Why did that accept such non-reciprocal arrangements that disadvantage their own citizens?
To repeat, a double-vaccinated Japanese who does not live in Germany or Italy can now use the passport for freedom of movement.
To repeat, a double-vaccinated Italian or German who does not live in Japan cannot only not avoid quarantine, they cannot enter in the first place.
10 ( +10 / -0 )
You write a lot about Japanese law. Perhaps you can tell us how common it is for a Japanese defendant sentenced to a term of two years or under to receive a custodial rather than a suspended sentence.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
Sadly, it is all too common in grade schools in Japan.
But is ruining this guy's career over something that happened decades ago really the best way to solve it?
You are entitled to your opinion of course, but are you really saying this in full knowledge of what he actually did? If you don't know, I suggest you find out. You might change your mind. "Bullying" doesn't even begin to cover it. And while bullying is common in all countries, acts of this extreme nature are not that common at all.
5 ( +5 / -0 )
Hi everyone - for some context, please let me share what I heard on the Japanese news (note that I am not saying I agree with this, just passing it on).
On the face of it, this appears to be a massive double standard that looks bad for Japan. However, the Japanese government position is this -
Vaccine passports are problematic, as they reveal personal information and can lead to discrimination against though who have not had the vaccine, violating the Constitutional commitment to equality of all citizens (personally speaking I think that requiring people to have a vaccine that saves lives, and letting the vaccinated go where the non-vaccinated cannot, is an obvious exception to this equality principle - I'm sure many readers would agree with this).
So Japan cannot implement a domestic passport for use inside Japan (either by Japanese or non-Japanese). Note that the Japanese business lobby are calling for such a passport in order to stimulate the economy by allowing the vaccinated to carry on as before the pandemic, but the government is resisting this for the above Constitutional reasons.
Now, overseas, the situation is different. Government in other countries are demanding vaccine passports from those who are vaccinated and wish to avoid mandatory quarantine. If Japan does not issue it's own passports for use outside the country, its vaccinated citizens (and foreign residents) will be disadvantaged when traveling outside Japan. The Japanese government is not responsible for schemes put in place by foreign governments, but is just trying to ensure its people receive equal treatment under those schemes that are in place.
So overseas - Japanese, Japan resident non-Japanese, Japan non-resident non-Japanese: all vaccinated people can use a vaccine passport = equality.
In Japan - Japanese, Japan resident non-Japanese, Japan non-resident non-Japanese: no-one can use a vaccine passport= equality.
So in these negotiations, the Japanese government will like accuse though countries demanding reciprocity of domineering behavior that would force Japan to break its own constitution. However, those countries will see Japan as failing to play ball. With this kind of difference in perspective, these talks may be difficult.
1 ( +6 / -5 )
This is quite possibly the single most atrocious statement I have read by a public figure in years. It is hard to no where to start.
"Don't go to Tokyo" -
millions of people live there or work there everyday. Some would rather stay at home and work remotely but due to the policies of their companies they cannot. How can you, without irony, suggested that millions of people should disrupt their own lives for a sporting event?
"In Rio everyone worries about Zika when it was not the place or the season" -
but this is the place and the season for COVID-19, so...what's your point?
"Japan is always efficient and organized - I don't know what the glitch is with the vaccine" -
If you don't know this, Mr. Pound, you cannot do your job and should resign. The reasons are well known and referred to frequently in the media. 1) Only doctors and nurses can give the jab, and there are not enough of then available. And during the Olympics, the availability will fall further as you steal our medical staff for your Games. 2) The vaccine approval was delayed to conducted "Japanese only" trials that produced the same result as the global trials 3) Japan is "too organized" to allow a turn up and be vaccinated approach, so everything is done by appointment. Unfortunately, the large volume of senior citizens who are not online means appointments are being done by phone. There are not enough phone lines.
This is basic knowledge about the current situation.
How can you possibly declare the Games are safe to hold if you are unaware of this?
Now, vaccines are being further diverted from the population as athletes are prioritized over vulnerable old people.
This is politically motivated
Evidence for this? Can we not go with the simpler explanation - people don't want to die for your Games. If anything, the politics is pushing in the other direction, trying to minimize the number of apparent infections (by refusing to test) so as to uphold Japan's international image.
all the restaurants and bars in Ginza are still open."
...you would know.
Mr. Pound, you should be aware that you come across as an intensely dislikable human being willing to sacrifice human lives for your own wallet. Absolutely horrendous, mate.
12 ( +12 / -0 )
As a migrant to Australia, one with a mixed southern European/English background, an Eastern European wife, and friends and neighbours with Chinese, Indonesian and Jewish backgrounds among many others, I find your "analysis" of Australian society utterly irrelevant, incomprehensible and risible.
Have you ever actually asked your Chinese-Australian neighbors and others what they think of Anzac day, or have you just assumed that they buy in to it because you have never asked them and they have never said otherwise? Next time you hang with them, ask them what they, as people of Asian heritage, think about positioning the Anzac story as a non-negotiable lynchpin of national identity. You might have an interesting discussion with them.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
Those Governments can't be simultaneously racist - i.e. won't allow people in from India - and non-racist - i.e. welcoming skilled Indian migrants as citizens - at the same time.
Governments allow in specific groups of immigrants when the government feels it is in their own interests to do so. These reasons are various, but usually economic.
A government can very easily bring people in and then discriminate against them later on. There is nothing inherently impossible about this (it is after all what we are seeing in action now).
Additionally, a government can also very easily bring people in (and even give them citizenship) while still allowing a particular ethnic group to dominate decision making and occupy the central heart of the country's perceived identity. This happens all over the world.
That is why I cannot understand your suggestion that if a government allows in a particular group of migrants, it cannot behave towards them in a racist manner at a later date. Of course it can. There are numerous other examples of people being allowed into a country and treated shoddily afterwards.
A well-known example is the British government's encouragement immigration from the Caribbean after WWII to make up for a labor shortage. Years later the Windrush Scandal happened. You suggest that my position is internally contradictory and cannot therefore be valid - but this suggestion has no foundation.
On the issues of the virus, I understand the points you are making about the virulence of Indian strains and the horrific situation there. But making it illegal for citizens of a country to return is absolutely the nuclear option. It cannot be allowed in a democracy - ever - since it deprives the banned citizens of their fundamental right to residence in their own nation and protection by their government.
I believe that Australia sees some of its citizens as more legitimate than others and centers its national myth making and "spiritual heart" on the history of one ethnic group, namely Anglo Australians.
You can call this "analysis" irrelevant and risible if you like. But there are more than 200 countries in the world. As far as I know, Australia is the only one that has outlawed some of its own citizens from returning home (it is certainly the only developed country doing this).
What is it about Australia that allows this to be possible? I would argue it is because those who are disproportionately affected have virtually no political representation and no-one to fight their corner and, yes, some Australians are seen as more Australian than others. Is it a coincidence that Australia is doing this and other countries are not?
As I mentioned above, we have already seem from the offshore refugee detention issue that the Australian government, despite leading an "advanced multicultural democracy", is far, far more ready and willing that than other developed nations to chuck human rights in the bin.
So there is an observable pattern of behavior on the part of the Aus government.
If there are quarantine issues and leaks from quarantine, the correct course of action is to address and sort those problems, not to deny Indian-Australians the support of their own government and leave them to their fate.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
Interesting that my description of Anzac Day seems to offend you more than brown-skinned Australian citizens being hung out to dry (or die) by their own government.
Your opinion over which of these two things requires the greater outrage rather proves the point I am trying to make.
That said, I'm not trying to be deliberately offensive. Perhaps "festival" upset you and if it did I would like to apologize. One can have a "sombre" festival - I used the word in that sense. I did not of course mean to imply that the occasion is joyous, if that is what you took from the word "festival".
If it helps, my view on Anzac Day is along the lines of this article.
In my view, it is inappropriate to have an ethnically exclusive commemorative event at the spiritual heart of what claims to be a multicultural nation. It puts impossible demands on immigrants trying to find and adopt the identity of their new nation; it offers them something they cannot possibly engage with.
I hope this does not get deleted for being "off topic". It is entirely relevant. The idea that Anzac Day is the one essential part of Australian identity that everyone must "get behind" is very much the same mindset that leads to the horrendous treatment of the immigrants locked into the tower blocks in Melbourne, or, as we see here, the discriminatory treatment meted out to Australians of South Asian heritage. They are not the right sort of Australian, you see.
As for living in Australia, I don't know what I could I say to convince you... that it's hard to get a spot for the Bunning's sausage sizzle and when you turn comes round you better hope it doesn't rain? that Telstra has poor customer service but Optus is even worse? that a nipper board is different from a surf board which is in turn different from a surf ski? that bin chickens provide a useful service when the remains of your Maccas has gone cold and you can't be bothered to get out of your seat? that when Origin is on, cheeky little signs goading the opposition appear above the motorway? That tradies will do just enough of the job to make it a hassle to find someone else before clearing off to do another job with a more lucrative day rate, later magically reappearing just before you can can them? (I once saw a truck on the motorway with the slogan "completes jobs on time and returns call" - where else could that be a unique selling point... ah, good times!)
Don't assume, eh. Of course there are many beautiful things about Australia. Not among these beautiful things are the following: race relations and proper introspection on issues of identity and belonging.
-2 ( +2 / -4 )
AustPaulToday 06:29 pm JST
Jpn guy, justify those comments please.
Sick of hearing such comments, It has nothing to do with race!
I am quite happy to defend these comments. People implementing policies with a racial bias don't normally announce "we are implementing a racist policy". This means that in order evaluate so consider the past statements and actions by political actors, and the political context, including the nature of representation. Who is acting in who's interests (or who is barracking for who, isn't that what y'all say?)
Let's look at the context then shall we- what percentage of Australian's have a parent from a non-English speaking background? I believe that number is rather high.
What about your elected representatives? As far I can see, the percentage is way, way lower. The Australian parliament, and the state parliaments, are massively Anglo-biased. Of course, this is what you would expect where in a country where the Anglo-Australians are the largest group in the population and there is a first-past-the-post voting system which exaggerates the degree of their majority.
But we would also then expect these politicians as a group tend to act in the interests of the Anglo population. I don't that is even really a controversial statement.
The idea that all Australian's of all colors are treated the same is simply not tenable. For example, you have a quasi-religious ancestor worshipping festival every year on April 25. Whose ancestors are you worshiping? Why are all the other ethnic groups in Australia "required" to join in and follow protocol to worship the ancestors of a certain portion of the population? I believe in 2017 a Sudanese-Australian woman was actually forced out of the country following a hate campaign against here when she refused to follow the April 25 rituals. Are some people more Australian than others?
This action, that disproportionately effects Australians of South Asian heritage, is exactly inline with how many people see Australia as a nation - with the notion that some Australians are "more Australian" than others.
As I said, your politicians are not going to announce "we are going to treat people of different races differently and prioritize the Anglo population, while claiming to the rest of the world to have an equitable multi-cultural country ".
So we need to looks at past incidents trends and attitudes and try and figure out what is going on.
Look at the refugee policy. Look at the treatment of the First Australians . Look at the faces of those in positions of influence. Look at the comments down the years of your politicians. Years back there was an awful racist fella called Peter Dutton. His has said and did some truly atrocious things to non-white people, also making various statements that could be considered support for white supremacy - is Mr. Dutton still in a position of influence I wonder... ah, I just looked him up, he seems to be your Minister for Defense.
More recently then, there is the recent tower block lockdown in Melbourne. Admittedly, this was the Victorian State Government not the central government, but the same principle applies.
I recommend you take a look at the BBC article
Coronavirus: The tenants enduring Australia's toughest lockdown
Here are some quotes from the article:
The majority of residents have limited income and come from non-English-speaking backgrounds. Many are migrants - some who arrived as refugees - from African nations, Vietnam and China. There are many young families and pensioners.
"Most of the residents found out about it when they saw uniformed police officers surrounding their homes," Ombudsman Deborah Glass said.
She said it was "unimaginable" that the "theatre of policing" which followed would have occurred for a similar Covid outbreak in a luxury apartment block.
So Aust Paul, unfortunately your pollies have form here.
I would suggest you views on how people of different ethnicities are treated in Australia do not necessarily reflect reality.
I apologize if the above feels piecemeal and cherry picked to you - I am not an academic, and I have not got the time to provide you with meticulous watertight research.
But the "it has nothing to do with race" is often wheeled out to defend actions that have everything to do with race.
Do you really think Australia, under any circumstances, would pass laws to jail people arriving in Australia from the UK? Which reminds me, what's that in the corner of your national flag? Another symbol of Australia's color-blind multiculturalism?
-5 ( +2 / -7 )