"John R. Yamamoto- Wilson" <john@rarebooksinjapan.com> wrote in message news:<bb4t2j$22nv$1@kanna.cc.sophia.ac.jp>...
> Derek Smallsbury wrote:
> 
> > > "British" and "Japanese" are races?
> 
> Kaz replied:
> 
> > I think they merely refer to those who inhabit in the islands, not race.
> 
> I think there is a difference in the way the two terms are applied. For
> instance, it makes perfectly good sense to talk of "Black British", but you
> are unlikely to hear anyone referring to "Black Japanese". 

Because historically we don't have any relationship between Africa. 

> Also, there's
> general agreement that "British" applies to people of different origins
> (mainly Celtic and Anglo-Saxon, with bits of Frankish, Jute, Viking, Norman,
> etc., thrown in), whereas, although archaelogical and other evidence shows
> that the same is true of the term "Japanese", that fact is so buried in
> prehistory that many people don't really take it into account and there are
> even those who deny (or attempt to deny) that it *is* a fact.

The Japanese are not a homogeneous race as people think. As well as
Britain, there are mainly two major origins, Yoyoi and Jomon. Yayoi
refers to those who immigrated from the continent as well as
Anglo-Saxon, and Jomon refers to those aboriginal Japanese including
Ainu and Hayato. Western part of Japan except southern Shikoku and
Kyushu, that is close to the continent is the region that the more
Yayoi folks inhabit, and the north eastern part of Japan is the Jomon
region. The well-known conflict of "Kansai vs Kanto(west vs east)" is
originated because of this ethnical difference, I think.