Declan; you said:

> >>Which part of Hearn was "ethnically British"? The Greek mother or the
> >>Irish father?

I said:

> > The Irish father, I would imagine. Hearn's father was Protestant Irish,
> > meaning he almost certainly had "British ethnicity" (insofar as that
term
> > makes any sense), since the Irish Protestants almost all came either
from
> > Scotland or England.

You said:

> Emphasis there though should be "insofar as that term makes any sense".
> The movement of migrants from (mostly) Scotland had dried up nearly 150
> years before Hearn's birth. Yes Hearn's father's background was
> ascendancy, but I don't think many people, even from Ulster could work
> out what "ethnically British" could possibly mean. Nationality sure,
> identity certainly, but ethnically? Even that oaf Paisley would be
> scratching his head. Kippers or no kippers.

Well, quite. We're splitting hairs here. What Kaz evidently meant by
"ethnically British" was something like "of stock originating in the British
Isles", and that would include Ireland. Admittedly, Hearn had a Greek mother
whom Kaz overlooked, but even that doesn't make much difference to the issue
here. The point is, Hearn was a *gaijin*, and Kaz is noting that he gained a
kind of "honorary Japanese" status, and my point is that, partial exceptions
like Hearn notwithstanding, to be Japanese one basically has to be born
Japanese of Japanese parents.

But, hairsplitting or not, it brings us back to that main point. The fact
that we both perceive the concept of "British ethnicity" as something that
doesn't actually make all that much sense (one can perfectly well be
"British" without having any ethnic claims to Britishness) stands in stark
contrast to the concept of "Japanese ethnicity", which is the prime
qualification for being recognised as "Japanese".

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com