Raj Feridun wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:01:09 +0900, Eric Takabayashi
> <etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote:
>
> >Raj Feridun wrote:
>
> >> >Problems with ANY manner of foreigners.
>
> >> Aside from one time in an Ikebukuro pachinko parlor back in '85 I
> >> haven't experienced very many problems personally despite my white
> >> skin and balding brown hair.
>
> >Try to get this. The problem of racism (or homelessness, or lack of kindness) in
> >Japan is not limited to your lack of experience.
>
> Already gotten. This is not even an issue and irrelevant to our
> conversation. I never said it was. YOU were the one who used the
> adjective ANY.

No, it was you making some special point about Asians in general.

> >> I think it depends very much on the foreigner in question.
>
> >Then why do you only believe there is a "big problem" of racism toward "Asians"?
> >What about toward Latinos, Africans, whites, blacks, and others?
>
> I don't believe there is only a big problem with Asian foreigners,
> Eric. I think we really have a communication problem here.

Yes. YOU are the one jumping in taking swipes at people for being overly broad, but you
are the one doing it as seen in even your last posts.

> My beef is
> with the theory that the Japanese in general have problems with ALL
> manners of foreigners. I don't agree with that.

"Any" does not mean "all". It represents potential. ANY kind of foreigner can have
trouble in Japan due to discrimination. I did not say ALL Japanese with ALL types of
foreigners.

You are correct that you have a communication problem.

> >> Yes, if you
> >> look Japanese but are not or if you are from any other country in
> >> Asia, particularly China or Korea you're going to encounter the
> >> problem.
>
> >Real estate agencies are the only businesses I can recall at the moment who care I
> >am foreign when I am a customer. I have not yet taken out a loan at the bank,
> >however.
>
> Neither have I. On this I was relying only on the experiences of my
> foreign acquaintances.
>
> >Are you just generalizing again, or are you being racist?
>
> Neither.

"You're going to encounter the problem."

I look Japanese but am not, like you specified. I don't have "big" racism problems like
Chinese or North Korean people may.

You are generalizing.

> >> The same goes for blacks.
>
> >American Blacks may say they feel quite comfortable in Japan because Japanese,
> >despite their stereotypes, lack the extreme negative views which developed through
> >history in the US.
>
> Maybe many of the racist Japanese just hide it better. But they can
> hide it no longer when their children want to marry a black person for
> example. That's when it often rears its ugly head. I know stories
> personally involving acquaintances.

People hiding their negative feelings and never expressing them, are in effect, the same
as those who do not commit acts of discrimination or make discriminatory statements. For
example, after my first child, a son was born, which seems to be what her father and
stepmother expected, no one in my wife's family, zero and none, has ever made an issue
of me being foreign again. They don't ooh at me being able to speak English, nor do they
ask me for lessons or even attempt to speak to me in English, nor do they treat me as if
they look down upon me as a foreigner.

> >> My single experience was a learning one.
>
> >Good. But I doubt you were a problem at home, either.
>
> Well I don't know if I'm a racist or not.

I don't say so, and I believe so, which is why I doubt you were a problem. You don't
need to tell us how you are close to blacks. I treat any I meet (haven't known any in
maybe eight years) like ordinary people, too.

> >> I didn't say trash. I said perfectly working items: household
> >> appliances, books, furniture and clothing.
>
> >What people put out for collection as trash is "trash", no matter what it may be. I
> >am not using the negative connotation of "trash". Japanese put out some incredible
> >things, things they would prefer to throw away, than sell, recycle, or give to
> >people who may have a use for them.
>
> Well in many cases it's only trash because it's discarded.

That's right.

> I agree it would be better to give it to someone who could put it to use if that
> is an option.

If neighbors knew each other better in large communities, they could be able to swap and
barter instead of throwing things away and buying new. I used to read comics out of the
local collection area. We also got a tricycle my son and later my daughter used for
years (till the plastic handlebars broke off) out of the trash. Someone apparently
thought it was no good if the electric motor did not work, not thinking to simply use it
as a scooter. And of course, my futons and clothes for the homeless were someone's
trash, filling up their closets despite being in perfectly good, even new or unused,
condition.

> >> Again, you're not understanding me. I never said it was meant to be
> >> compassionate.
>
> >Then there is no need to link putting out useful items in the trash to a talk about
> >kindness toward strangers.
>
> Call it an "opportunity" then. I see the link, don't you?

I told you the poor can eat well out of the trash. I would eat out of the trash, and I
would feed my kids trash too, before collapsing of starvation and possibly dying in the
hospital like one local man, but people shouldn't be required to do so.

Putting out trash, is putting out trash. I first had to warm my wife to the idea of
giving to the homeless by pointing out I was "cleaning".

> >> I specifically said they do NOT deliver these items to
> >> the needy. I said that for whatever reason they throw away working
> >> things that in the USA might be sold for used much less given away. I
> >> don't see many "garage sales" here although occasionally there are
> >> flea markets.
>
> >Yes, there are flea markets. It's good that buyer and seller can benefit, and I hope
> >it helps the environment, if not the economy. But there are still people who can't
> >afford those goods.
>
> Yes, indeed. I only mentioned it because alot of used items that are
> discarded here are the stuff of garage sales and flea markets back in
> the US.
>
> >> <Anger>OK, Pardon me but who are YOU to dictate how others should lead
> >> their lives or how they should spend their money or direct their
> >> charity?!? </Anger>
>
> >Someone who cares about helping people and does so, despite having little. I spend
> >my money stupidly, but I am not one of many who does so, yet whines about paying
> >taxes or insurance with more than enough to do so, completely ignoring the plight of
> >others who do not.
>
> >This is also a popular tactic to those who prefer to do nothing but care for
> >themselves.

Complaining about taxes is one tactic, but I meant the anger and defensiveness was a
popular tactic.

> >Who are you?
>
> I'm a man who doesn't only care for himself.

Beyond pursuing free time, neither do I. In just the past year, I've gone even more out
of shape. It would help if I didn't assume I was going to die early like most of my
direct ascendants.

> I don't feel obligated to
> say more than that. You can believe it or not. You can accuse me of
> defensive tactics to your heart's delight.
>
> I do not spite you one bit for what you do, Eric. I've already said a
> bunch of times that I sincerely admire your efforts.

And let me tell anyone if I haven't yet, DON'T admire me or what I am doing.

If I relied upon Internet and newsgroup people to try to feel good about myself, I would
be a wreck, because I and my views am normally as unwelcome as you first were.

Why not? Because it isn't special. I am not special. It requires no special effort or
sacrifice to help others. None at all. I have free time, and I gave them what others
were not using.

It is simply what should be done.

> What I resent is the proselytizing.

Other posters are ignoring it. They also used to attack.

Many people resent being confronted with possibly having to question themselves, their
behavior, or their beliefs. I often did the same.

Just this morning, I was trying to explain to a woman how having Christmas parties does
not require conversion to the Christian faith (as her niece in the US was
contemplating), nor does participation mean one is a Christian. I was explaining the
difficulty many modern Japanese might have understanding what was required for actual
conversion, for example, acknowledging the fact one is a sinner (going to hell)
requiring forgiveness.

And again, I know I cannot consider myself a Christian.

> >> Even Jesus wasn't as proselytizing as you are for the Church of
> >> Charity for the Homeless.
>
> >And perhaps no one I've ever met in my entire life who slanders the poor, those
> >people who are doing some of the actual ignoring as they walk downtown, has spent as
> >much time being critical, or been so critical of people's efforts to help, as you.
>
> Read above. I commend your efforts with the homeless.

Don't.

> It's the sermons I take issue with.

You're just attacking the messenger. Ask someone who knows or read your own Bible.

> >The New Testament is a very brief account of a number of years of ministry which can
> >be browsed in about an hour containing relatively few memorable passages.
>
> Read above.

Have you read it?

> >I no longer call myself Christian, but it seems you know something of the teachings
> >of Jesus.
>
> Very little actually.

One is not required to convert, to understand some of the basics. The problem is
actually trying to put the ideals into practice, which I could never do, one reason I
cannot be a real Christian.

> >Care to do something more about them than being critical of those making an effort
> >according to their meager means or abilities?
>
> Yes, I would. Shall we change the subject at last? I'll extend my hand
> in friendship if you consider me to be worthy of such and happily be
> done and over with it. It's not really going anywhere anyway.

Anyone is welcome on the newsgroup. When I first began posting in 1996, I used to
believe people I disagreed with for whatever reason, should shut up and get out of
newsgroups. I no longer harbor ill will toward any of them and would prefer to ignore
attacks on myself from regulars.

> >> I'm surprised you aren't demanding that Bill lives his entire life up
> >> UNTIL he dies in poverty
>
> >Bill Gates giving up all his tens of billions at once would be useless. It would be
> >gone in less than a year. He wouldn't even be able to restore Iraq by himself, and
> >the rest of the world would be as screwed as ever. It is true, however, that he
> >could probably buy out North Korea for the sake of saving the people.
>
> Hey, that's a great idea about North Korea!

Isn't it. I realized he was probably financially capable of doing so a while ago. Of
course the regime would resist, but substantial bribes would take care of them. They
aren't going to amass Gates' billions running their country into the ground waiting for
handouts of food.

Do what was done with other dictators: offer Kim and others comfortable lives in exile.
It failed with Saddam Hussein, but worked for some others before him.

Why the US does not attempt this approach with North Korea, I do not know.

> >So he and his wife have decided to help many disadvantaged people and regions of the
> >world over time, in such long range efforts as improving public health.
>
> >Thank God for Bill Gates and his wife.
>
> Yes, they're apparently good people.

Understand I hate his business practices, and don't like most of his company's products.

> >> since not to do so with the amount of money
> >> he has would be shirking his charitable responsibilities. Before he
> >> dies isn't doing much for the homeless right now while all those
> >> billions sit in a bank somewhere.
>
> >Now you question the effectiveness of Bill Gates, who in monetary terms, and perhaps
> >in percentage of sacrifice, is or will be the greatest single philanthropist alive.
> >Who are you, indeed.
>
> I was being sarcastic as an extension of my anger towards your
> accusatory preachy attitude towards anyone not playing with your game
> plan.

It is not my game plan. This is what many fail to understand. I am merely a clumsy
messenger.

> >> Oh yeah, I forgot, I'm selfish so I have no right to comment. Go ahead
> >> and deflect.
>
> >There is no need for me to deflect attention from my argument or myself. And the
> >fact remains it is I helping strangers downtown with my time and money my family
> >should be using, not other people who have the means to make a real difference such
> >as providing aid or jobs.
>
> Is this fair to your family?

Yes. I even have their permission.

One more reason people should not admire me or what I am doing: I recognize my limits.
Never would I impoverish myself or my family to help others.

Let me give you an example and an update: the remaining man behind Fukuyama Castle is in
bad shape. It is no act. I can observe him as I walk up from behind where he spends the
day sitting alone near his sleeping spot, and I have to hail him to speak to him. I can
observe him without his knowledge.

While he used to be talkative and alert just last week, this week, he sits hunched over
and unresponsive. When I arrived with the futons, he was nowhere to be seen. I found out
upon his return the next day that he had gone to find some medicine for some unspecified
problem.

I fear that he will be a repeat of his friend, but am unsure of what to do.

Two things I will not do, though it would be the right thing, and what would be required
of someone eventually if he continues: I will not feed him all his meals to be sure he
is eating right, and I will not take him in.

Can you understand how I am feeling now about the responsibility? And about myself?

Apathetic and uncaring people may not do anything to improve the situation, but they
conveniently avoid such problems as I have.

> >You, however, seem to have some great need to avoid addressing what you may or may
> >not be doing to help people with no relation to you, with your own time and
> >resources. You avoid addressing the fact I want to send homeless and unemployed to
> >your warm and kind town, not to be rid of them, but for them to get what they need.
> >Why do you hinder me?
>
> Why do the people who I have relations with need to suffer so that I
> may help strangers?

If they are kind and caring, why would they be suffering? They should be glad to help.

> What makes the strangers more in need than those
> I'm related to??

Are your acquaintances also unemployed and or homeless, sleeping outside on cardboard in
the cold?

> My children didn't ask to be born. I brought them
> into this world and I see no need why they should go without so that I
> can assist those who I don't even know.

There is no need to go without what they require.

> Like someone else in this
> thread said I would hope that the homeless might be able to turn to
> their OWN kin for a hand of help.

It was probably me, when I retold the plight of the man hospitalized with malnutrition,
starved for a week without seeking help (strangers called an ambulance), eating trash,
or stealing. I also told you the remaining man seemed to have no friends including other
groups of homeless with more, just one block away. There are even perhaps five other
homeless men who loiter in the castle park during the day. They have money to spare on
cigarettes and personal stereos. They look clean and quite neat. They might well be able
to help a starving fellow homeless, particularly if they cut down on their own vices.

But when I already see two groups of three homeless cooking ONE package of ramen between
them, that represents a problem. The reason I wanted to help them in the first place. It
is we who are equipped to help them.

> Yes, I know this isn't always a
> possibility but family is really so important. I think there is
> nothing more important in this world.

Same here. I'm not buying my kids snacks to help conserve my own share of the money. So
what? My kids get fresh made snacks daily at nursery school, and they should be eating
their three meals properly instead of waiting for junk, anyway. It's not as if we can't
eat, I can't buy a house or my kids can't go to college because I want to help people.
My not having money for some luxuries (and eg, not sending kids to piano lessons or
private school) is because of my own attitude and lifestyle, of course with my wife's
approval, one reason I married her.* No one I try to help is to blame.

* My wife does not idolize or romanticize foreigners or living abroad, nor does she have
an interest in learning English. She simply married me for myself. I married her because
she is not a woman who wants to be provided for, and she does not expect the children to
grow up as elites of any kind. We simply want our children to be happy. It will however,
be unfortunate, if they had the potential to be doctors or ice skaters, for example.

> Further, I don't hinder you. I wish you great success in your efforts
> to help the homeless and hope you will step off your soapbox to give
> them 100%.

You tell me your area is so warm and kind, but do not take me up on the offer to have
some unemployed or homeless move into town to get what they need. If your area has the
jobs and the social system, what's the problem? The government and people of Fukuyama
are not helping them. I want them to have the opportunities or help I simply cannot
offer.

And I still need to convince them, first. No homeless will admit to being from Fukuyama.
They are here for a reason despite the atmosphere. Maybe they like the castle like I do.
The starving man behind the castle surely does, or he'd get his ass to a more hospitable
place (of course park staff do not want him, and there is nothing but a water fountain)
a few minute's walk away. He should walk to the station shopping and dining area to find
some choice food in the trash. If I were poor and hungry, I'd do it in a second.

> >Whatever you may be doing for others, you prefer to be overwhelmed by the problems
> >of the world than look for what even you can do. Even a school child picnicking in
> >the park can be of use to a hungry man laying out in the cold. My preschool age
> >children can understand why I do not give them so many snacks, with no fuss. When
> >they are a little older, I want them to do the helping themselves.
>
> That's cool and if that's the limit of your own children's "going
> without" so you can help the homeless it's hardly worth mentioning.

My children are going without snacks, for which they neglect their regular meals. They
are not denied piano lessons or juku because of the underprivileged of the world. And if
for my lack of personal ambition to succeed, my children cannot have university paid for
them (if they want to attend), they can simply seek full time employment, join the
military, or pay their own way after high school. The world needs blue collar workers,
service industry employees, or more ambitious people who can take care of themselves and
learn valuable life lessons. One reason for my lack of ambition is my privileged life as
a child. I went to university because my mother told me to at the age of 16.

Now I'm simply lazy.

> >What are you doing for others?
>
> I cannot answer this question to your satisfaction so I'll pass.
>
> >Yes, I see your talk about incredible levels of Japanese materialism and waste while
> >others literally starve to death, even in Japan, has nothing to do with arguing
> >against lack of kindness.
>
> But that's certainly not limited to Japan

But we are talking about Japan. If you want to talk about the US, I pointed out a while
back that the American situation is simply obscene, and last night that the US should
rethink their priorities in national spending.

> and in fact I argue that
> it's much worse in other parts of the world where there are many many
> more homeless and needy. Why CAN'T we talk about those places?!

Because while I go wildly off topic, here we are still talking about Japan.

And I am already doing something about people in less fortunate countries halfway around
the world, according to my own meager ability.

--
"I want to meet my father and say, your sperm became me."

http://tinyurl.com/wc8y