Getting it Right?

Just a short round of applause for a great job and a valuable service to the academic community. I enjoyed reading the lot of your reviews, disagreeing with some minor points, but on the whole pretty pleased with your comments. The only sad thing is that the site isn't at least ten times as voluminous, and I am looking forward to the day when it will be.

I am sure to recommend you as a source to my students.

Whither Zainichi Naturalization?

Q. I came across JapanReview.Net's review of Japanese Only following [activist] Debito Arudou's criticisms of Paul Scalise and his reply to "The Community" in Japan internet forum. I enjoyed the review.

I have one question regarding the current issue of Zainichi and Special Permanent Residency. Have any surveys been conducted of that population to ask a question similar to the following: "If the Japanese Government offered you full nationality with only minimal background checks attached (e.g., no criminal record), would you accept provided that you renounced your current citizenship?" The question has bothered me for some time; anecdotes suggest that the majority might refuse, but is there any hard statistical polling data to support this suspicion?

Ken Yasumoto-Nicolson
Tokyo, Japan

A. One survey conducted in 1975 revealed that 74.2% of Zainichi Koreans were against naturalization. See Hahn Bae-ho and Hong Sung-chick, The Korean Minority in Japan: Their Problems, Aspirations and Prospects 15 (No 6) Korea I 4.17 (1975). However, we are not aware of a more recent survey. Should any JRN readers have further information, please contact us.

To be sure, the Bae-ho and Sung-chick cited survey does seem to corroborate other evidence. As a majority of Zainichi Koreans apparently opposed Japanese naturalization, those who seek it still risk being rejected by Korean society as well. For books that discuss in detail the historical and legal context behind this national v. ethnonational conflict see, for example:

• Lee, C., De Vos, G.A. & Scalapino, R.A. (1981) Koreans in Japan: ethnic conflict and accommodation, Berkeley, University of California Press.
• Ryang, S. (1997) North Koreans in Japan: language, ideology, and identity, Boulder, Colo., Westview.
• Iwasawa, Y. (1998) International law, human rights, and Japanese law: the impact of international law on Japanese law, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
• Ryang, S. (2000) Koreans in Japan: critical voices from the margin, London, Routledge.

"The Dave Show" Revisited

Hello Readers of JapanReview.net. Arudou Debito here. This is a response to Dr. Honjo's January 2005 book review of Japanese Only: The Otaru Hot Springs Case and Racial Discrimination in Japan (Akashi Shoten: 2004).

I would like to respond to all points raised within, but that would take up too much space in this forum. So let me direct the reader to a separate website where I critique the review in full: http://www.debito.org/japanreviewcritique.html

Let me make a disclaimer: I did not write this critique simply because my book got a negative review. I am not adverse to criticism. Quite used to it, really. Given what I do in Japan, I deal with it every single day.

I also do not mind people pointing out things I could have written better, or just plain correctly. Constructive criticism is indeed a necessary part of the search for truth, and a natural part of the process towards betterment of human society.

I wrote this critique because I believe JapanReview.net's review is unfair. And not merely because it compares a nonfiction book with a comic book (and faults it, inter alia, for not being as funny).

The review contains unbalanced critique, fallacious comparisons, erroneous assertions, careless misreadings, glaring and unprofessional misquotes, unreasonable expectations, unwarranted jabs, and even gross inaccuracies (I give examples at the site). This makes the review less a constructive criticism, more like an academic exercise bordering on a hatchet job.

One clear example is when Dr Honjo writes:

That's really strange, because I also quote www.debito.org on pages 50, 130 (twice), 132, 136, 151 (twice), 152, 154, 175, 176, 181, 200, 207, 208, 211 (twice), 227, 230, 232, 248, 257, 258, 259, 266 (twice), 268, 282, 290, 291, 301, 306, 323, 325 (twice), 327, 328, 330, 335, 338, 358, 373, 380, 381, 382 (twice), 383 (twice), 384 (twice), 386, 387 (thrice), 388, 389, 396, 398 (twice), and 401. In other words, towards the end, on almost every single page.

That's a total of 66 citations. One can't miss them. They're footnotes. Pages 181 and 398 even contain a link to an artery site, with links to issues all over www.debito.org

There's more. Again, readers are welcome to read the rest of my critique at: http://www.debito.org/japanreviewcritique.html

No doubt the reviewers at JapanReview.net will have the last word here, and will put up a spirited defense.

Let's have them write a few books instead. Show us how it's done.

Debito Arudou
Author, Japanese Only (2004)
Hokkaido, Japan

JapanReview.Net editors reply:

We thank Mr. Arudou for writing in with his objections and we encourage people to read Mr. Arudou’s comments on JRN’s review of his book.

We have adjusted the timeline—that Mr. Arudou points out is potentially misleading—to correspond with the interpretation of events found in Japanese Only. We had attempted to compress events into a short summary and as a result the sequence of events became obscure. Clarifications were formally made on June 30, 2005. We thank him for his input.

In the commentary, he maintains that “the review was unbalanced, ill-conceived, inaccurate, and in places mean-spirited." He also notes that he does not “get along with” JRN reviewer Yuki Allyson Honjo “personally.”

We are sorry that Mr. Arudou was hurt by our criticism of his book that he felt it was an “academic exercise bordering on a hatchet job,” but we stand by our review. Thinking that Japanese Only was lacking in its execution is not the same as disparaging the cause of fighting racism in Japan.

As for Mr. Arudou’s charge on the “gross inaccuracies” outlined above, we specifically point to “passing references" in the "main text.” This does not include footnotes in our view. Regardless, Japanese Only added little to our understanding of the website’s role in his activism; how many people viewed the site, how he designed the website with his activism in mind, who viewed the site, what worked on his website and what failed—and so forth. Mr. Arudou himself admits that most of his references to the website are mere citations, and thus conveniently re-enforces our point.

In his commentary linked above, it is again evident that Mr. Arudou either did not read our text very carefully or willfully disregarded it, as we qualify many of our comments in the very text he considers problematic (e.g., "mostly anonymous," etc).

Our continuing mission at JapanReview.net is to discuss ideas within books and raise questions, and we think we did exactly that in the “The Dave and Tony Show.” We are pleased that we have precipitated debate and discussion.

Gregory Clark Responds


In her January 2005 book review of Japanese Only entitled "The Dave and Tony Show," Yuki Allyson Honjo writes:

There are two problems with this statement.

One, there seems to be deliberate malice in the way your otherwise careful reviewer has chosen to distort the above quote into an alleged endorsement of racial discrimination to preserve Japanese culture.

Two, the above quote was made entirely in the context of several Otaru bathhouses seeking to exclude the foreigners who, operating outside the restraints normally imposed by Japanese society, had caused serious loss or damage to those enterprises.

If your reviewer believes that those enterprises should have tolerated the losses or damage, or that there was some reasonable way to exclude the damage and loss creating foreigners, she should say so. She should also realize that those who disagree with that view are not automatically apologists for racial discrimination.

As someone who has worked hard in government committees and elsewhere to remove the burdens and legal discriminations imposed on foreigners here, I regard the 'apologist' remark as defamatory and would be glad if it could be withdrawn.

Your reviewer should also know that some of us long aware of the background to the Otaru bathhouses affair, and the personality defects of some of the actors involved— defects which she herself dissects well—have had particular reasons for doubting the sincerity of the alleged anti-discrimination activities there.

But that aside, it stands to reason that foreigners who do not observe the rules and customs of the society in which they have chosen to stay should expect a less than effusive welcome in that society.

If your reviewer thinks otherwise she should say so.

As for UN Conventions that are supposed to ban any form of discrimination against foreigners who do break rules, could someone please explain the basis of visa discrimination in Japan, the US etc against people from countries whose residents are seen as likely to abuse visa freedoms?

Gregory Clark
Columnist, The Japan Times
Tokyo, Japan

Yuki Allyson Honjo replies:

I agree with Gregory Clark that Debito Arudou's presentation of the Otaru Onsen case is, unfortunately, poorly structured and argued in Japanese Only; little thought and research was put into how and why laws are passed, their complications and costs (i.e., sovereignty costs, transaction costs, opportunity costs, and contracting costs), and why Mr. Arudou and his co-plaintiffs apparently believe that such costs are either non-existent or negligible in Japan.

Nor I am convinced that forcing social reform legislation on the Japanese public is a panacea that, however well-intentioned, suddenly changes how people think, feel and behave.

That said, Mr. Clark and I part company over the actions of the bathhouse owner himself and the plaintiffs' case against him. But let us be clear: I use the word "apologist" as my opinion about this particular case only. It was not a sweeping statement about the life and character of Gregory Clark, nor was it meant to be defamatory in any way.

To address Mr. Clark's question, even if these enterprises suffered material losses—which, by the way, were never proven in court in Mr. Arudou's case—it is unfortunate, but the correct response is not wholesale discrimination of all non-Japanese looking customers. The owner should call the police, sue the perpetrators of the crime, perhaps sue the city/police for their lack of response, and/or collect their insurance. Doling out one's misgivings to a single subgroup is illogical, not to mention an asymmetric syllogism. If Japan has a system of law in which the individual is responsible for his or her actions, why are foreigners/non-ethnic Japanese forced to pay the costs of unruly individuals who happen to be of the same race?

In short, if someone has the time, money, and personal need to right these wrongs at the local level via civil litigation, so be it.

Narratives: a Matter of Perspective

I am writing to thank you for your excellent, perceptive reviews of Japanese Only and My Darling is a Foreigner (Media Factory: 2002). In particular the former David Aldwinckle's book certainly called for a second, closer and more critically thought-out evaluation than it has received elsewhere, until now.

I think you intuited some of this already, but I would still like to say how correct you are. You noted that the style was casual. While personally it can be charming, it extended deeper, to more serious issues. Mr. Arudou was very casual with timelines and facts and his sequencing of events in Japanese Only leaves much to be desired. My husband and I were members of the [Business Excluding Non-Japanese Customers Issho] BENCI project Mr. Arudou refers to and quotes and paraphrases from in his book (the Japanese and the slightly altered English version.) We had all agreed to keep in absolute confidence all the activities, members, and mail contents of our group. All of the information Mr. Arudou published about BENCI was put in without agreement on making it public. Indeed, contrary to our agreement not to do so.

Mr. Arudou's fervor seems to have blinded him to two ironies which are apparent to former BENCI members reading his book. He felt held back by the group and resentful of being reminded to distance the apparent center of activity from himself, but forgot that the intention was to protect him. Secondly, as you noted in your review, the target for Mr. Arudou's ire was Tony Laszlo. The rest of us relied on Mr. Laszlo to communicate the messages from the group which Mr. Arudou would ignore otherwise. Unfortunately this resulted in Mr. Laszlo being scapegoated in Japanese Only, particularly in the Japanese version.

I am sure you can imagine the chagrin we have felt on seeing published this interpretation the author chose to put on the efforts of his former teammates, and yours is the first review to pick up on the sense that something was wrong. You were indeed right.

Anna Isozaki
Former BENCI member
Gunma, Japan

Opportunism Trivializes Real Discrimination

Well done for your courageous review of Debito Arudou’s Japanese Only. Arudou and his family should not have been excluded from the onsen in Otaru, but I suspect I am not alone in objecting to the way this unpleasant, but essentially trivial incident has been parlayed into a career opportunity. In my own personal experience—and personal experience is all that Mr. Arudou offers us—there is no systemic problem of racial discrimination in Japanese onsen. Many years ago I spent two months cycling down the Japan sea coast from Aomori to Shimonoseki. I used minshuku, onsen, and sento every night, usually showing up after dark covered in grime, stinking like a garbage truck, and unable to communicate except in the most basic Japanese. Never once was I refused entry. On the contrary, the hospitability was often embarrassingly fulsome. In the subsequent twenty five years the few racially discriminatory establishments I have come across were in lines of business that involved breaking other laws too.

Japan has certainly got its flaws—and a sense of otherness from the rest of the world is one of them—but the attempt to monster it into George Wallace’s Alabama trivializes the real-life brutal discrimination that still disfigures our world and the heroic campaigners who have put themselves on the line to fight it. Mr. Arudou appears to be a sincere and energetic individual with a flair for public relations. Why doesn’t he use his talents on behalf of Japan’s homeless or mentally ill or the refugees from the North Korean gulags or some other cause that is genuinely worth getting angry about?

Peter Tasker
Author. Inside Japan (1987), Restructuring Japan (1993) and Japan in Play (1999)
Tokyo, Japan

First, the empirical question. Informed testimony—that of, for instance, Mr. Robert Neff, the established non-Japanese authority of Onsens—is quite clear that there is no general problem with respect to foreigners entering communal baths. Twenty years of personal experience in Japan confirms this. Mr. Aldwinckle does not offer convincing justification for inferring, from his own—clearly unpleasant—experience, the existence of a widespread pattern of discrimination.

This is also true of the parallel assertion that establishments of other types which discriminate are "proliferating." Again, this seems so at odds with one's own experience and the views of informed observers that it requires examination. Mr. Aldwinckle`s website identifies 28 cases of signs in 15 localities which offend his, or his group`s, sensibilities. 10 instances appear to relate to establishments it might be unwise to have one's wife see one entering or which it would be disconcerting to see one's wife entering. A further linked page carries only such questionable venues. The pages are, I am afraid, poorly organized and difficult to follow; one may have missed or double-counted an instance or two. But more importantly, little "time-series"-style perspective is offered by which we might judge whether the number of signs is rising or falling.

It would therefore seem premature to be characterising this as "proliferation." Moreover it is far from clear that this sample of offenders is in any way representative. Could one, for instance, offer a useful general overview of labour conditions in Japan if one based one's examination preponderantly on bath-houses, massage parlours, hostess bars and nightclubs? To suggest that this sort of sample could prove the existence of a "pattern of discrimination" comparable with Segregation in the South, or with slavery under the British Empire, seems unwise. Indeed, invocation of such parallels strikes me as being in very poor taste.

Second, the more serious question of Mr. Aldwinckle's suggested "solution." He demands that Japanese law be changed to incorporate, with the full force of domestic law, the UN's CERD. That is to say, he argues that a UN protocol has a claim to be taken so seriously that it should, in the hands of judges, make law where the representative government of a particular country has made none.

Yet on what basis can a determination (however high-minded) reached by a conclave of unelected functionaries, untested by being put to a vote, be set above domestic law? A UN declaration is no more than an agreement made between functionaries. It can in no way be compared with a law properly authorized by a representative and sovereign government. It is dangerous to underestimate this difference.

Either one has a government, sovereign in all departments, and answerable to its own people, between whom and with whom communication is in its own language(s), and consistent with its own history and traditions, or one has a government without effective representation for the governed.

Mr. Aldwinckle's campaign to import law made by functionaries should therefore be resisted on principle by anyone who takes representative government seriously. Even a bad law made by a representative government is better than a desirable law made by judicial or bureaucratic fiat—because the law made by a representative government can be changed by the people it affects. My fear is that the protagonists in this case have not considered the logical consequences of the position they have espoused.

Alexander Kinmont
Former Chief Equity Strategist, NikkoCitigroup (Japan)
London, United Kingdom

• Dr. Mulvey states that Yuki Honjo is a "friend" of Tony Lazslo. His assertion is incorrect; Yuki Honjo has never met Tony Lazslo before, has never spoken with him, and probably would not recognize him on the street unless she happened to be carrying a copy of My Darling is a Foreigner. Paul Scalise, for the record, has also never met Tony Lazslo to this date.

• Yuki Honjo recently became a member of Issho Kikaku for the same reason (and same time) that Paul Scalise became a member of Mr. Arudou’s The Community: shameless promotion of JapanReview.Net with the vague hope that members of these fora might be interested in its content about the questions and issues raised over human rights in Japan.

• Dr. Mulvey posits that the review was somehow personally motivated. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have nothing but goodwill for Mr. Arudou. Our critique focused squarely on the text. That this was somehow personally motivated, Dr. Mulvey and Mr. Arudou might be protesting too much.

We encourage our JRN readers to visit Dr. Mulvey’s review.