Kaz wrote:

> One of the most famous Japanese novelist is ethnically British but he
> had Japanese nationatily. Koizumi Yaso, His English name is Lafcadio
> Hearn.

Absolutely. I was thinking of Hearn as I wrote. Hearn was very much taken
into Japanese people's hearts, I think, much as Gerald ("Geraldo") Brennan
was by the Andalucians in Spain. I would say Hearn (like Brennan) achieved a
kind of "honorary" status as a member of his adoptive country, but I see
these as exceptions. I would still stick to my assertion that Japan (like
Spain) tends, on the whole, to view its countrymen/women as being *born*
that way from parents who were born that way (i.e., as a matter of
ethnicity).

> The phenomenon of the Koreans is a peculiar case. The Koreans refuse
> to gain Japanese citizenship because of their strong ethnic prides

Well, again I was aware of that objection, which is why I specifically
referred to

> > Koreans born in Japan and with Japanese nationality

That is to say, I was trying to avoid the dispute about Koreans who refuse
Japanese citizenship, and talking only about those who have accepted it. To
talk about the former is a bit of a can of worms. I don't really want to
discuss at this point whether the Japanese government should make special
concessions for people who are only here, for the most part, because their
parents or grandparents were brought here, basically, as  slaves - and even
saying that might upset you and distract from my main point which, I repeat,
is that "Japaneseness" is more a matter of ethnicity, whereas "Britishness"
is more a matter of nationality.

> > Yes, exactly, although even the people you call "aboriginal" came
originally
> > from elsewhere.
>
> True but they came from Siberia like 20 thousand years ago. They are
> eligible to be called as "aboriginal".

I won't quibble with that; the Australian aborigines also came from
somewhere else originally!

> If you ever go to Kyoto, you might see some people in Kyoto tend to
> look down on those people in Kanto or Tohoku just because they are
> Emishi(alias of Jomon type people). And I think that it's similar to
> how Anglo-Saxon did not allow Irish or Celts in their society.

Yes, although just this week research was published showing that the average
descendant of the "Anglo-Saxons" is actually about 50% Celt, so they did not
exclude Celts to quite the same extent as is commonly imagined. Remember,
when the Anglo-Saxons arrived, England was populated by Celts. It now
appears they intermarried to a far greater degree than previously assumed.

> Nevertheless, I think we are much more assimilated than Britain maybe
> because the time Yayoi folks settled down in this island is much more
> earlier than the British case.

That's what I imagined, but didn't want to jump to conclusions, especially
since you mark such a difference between yourself and the Kanto Japanese!

> The Japanese imperial system certainly came from China, not from the
> frozen land of Siberia. At least the superior civilizations of the
> early centuries belonged to such imperial culture, so I think Jomon
> folks felt inferior against Yayoi folks. Also Yayoi folks were
> racially slightly bigger than Jomon folks so I guess they were
> stronger than Jomon thus Yayoi conquered Jomon.

Well, being bigger would count, but being numerous would count more. Most
important of all, though, would be having a more advanced culture. I have to
be very careful here, and say at once that having an advanced culture
doesn't make any human grouping more intrinsically human than any other
grouping. Some of the most "civilised" people I have met have lived in the
most "primitive" of circumstances (Levi-Strauss, and all that - but it's
*true*!). But, in the last analysis, the structures of social, political and
military organisation (together with possible technological advantages) are
likely to be what gave the Yayoi the edge.

> I think they were speaking their own Jomon type language, which is
> similar to the Ainu language. I think the Tohoku dialect still
> contains many characteristic words of their own Jomon type language
> though.

Right. I wasn't clear on that point. That's quite a strong indication they
still had their integrity as an ethnocultural group.

> Kinai civilization is not like such crude, barbaric and flippant Jomon
> type Tokyo regime.

Well - be honest - both cultures have their good sides and their bad sides.
for example...

> We had been holding good relations with the
> continent. However Tokyo ruined it by their silly wars. It's a quite
> frustrating that the Jomon Satsuma-Hayato regime of imperial Tokyo
> destroyed our important relationship between the continent, which had
> been lasted for many centuries ever since the period of Shotoku Taishi
> who first established the diplomatic relations with China.

Reading Touson Shimazaki's Yoake Mae ("Before the Dawn") one has such a
tremendous sense that what was lost was irreplaceable and yet also that it
had to go. A world where women were not allowed to travel? Where the wheel
was not allowed for transport? Where contact with other countries (China and
Holland excepted) was forbidden?

> The
> pseudo-western, honorary Whites Tokyo folks abandoned the Kinai
> civilization and the whole relation with East Asia, and then started
> to look down on Asians and started to adore the Western culture so
> blindly and recklessly. Isn't that quite a silly thing?

Yes, it is. And it is one of my major misgivings about living in Japan.
Cosmetic surgery so their noses can be more "takai", like white people,
indeed! I find this kind of thing as absurd as I assume you do.
______________________________

Kaz, this is, I think, the first posting where we really got down to a
*dialogue*. It's been difficult to get to that point. Perhaps some of it's
my fault, and I could have done better at times, but when I take a look over
in fj.soc.politics, where you say they've been insulting you for years, I
find you posting things about "Disgusting retared dog-eating gooks" and
people replying, "Hey, Kaz, you garbage, are you getting all steamed up
again with your violent delusions and fantasies?" and "Are you still taking
that medicine the doctor gave you?" (loose translations). OK, the responses
are pretty aggressive and sarcastic, but your original posting wasn't
exactly constructive or full of the milk of human kindness, was it?

Don't you think the reason it's so hard to get down to a dialogue with you
might have something to do with *you*? And don't you think those people who
insult you are just responding to you on the level that you initiated? Seems
kind of a shame since, as this posting shows, when you get out of "insult
mode" you have some really interesting things to say that I can definitely
relate to and respond to.

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com