Author Archives: japansociology

The Social Consequences of Skin Color in Brazil

Posted on by

by Joana Ito

Cultural diversity and racial miscegenation is now an image that Brazil is pride to export. However, the ideal of racial democracy in Brazil is still a dream. Although the ideology of miscegenation is widely spread, the mixing of races and colors did not result in physical nor socioeconomic homogeneity.

The problem of racial discrimination against blacks in Brazil is largely attributed to the historical past. The racial inequality that remains in Brazilian society is regarded as a consequence of the long history of enslavement, an inheritance of a dirty past of exclusion and discrimination. However, in a society where the general perception of “being black equals being poor” remains, and where most would be truly surprised if they met a black lawyer, doctor or businessman, the discussion of race and color cannot be limited to matters of correcting a “historical debt”.

Black African slavery did, undeniably, impose social economic exclusion for black people and was cause and consequence for the establishment of racist values of white superiority. Amazingly though, the question of white privilege is often disregarded in the discussion of racial inequality in Brazil. In its discussion, the focus is not on the income concentration of white elites, but on the poverty of the black. It is more about the fact that the black cannot benefit from the free public higher education, rather than about the fact that richer white portion of the population enjoyed for decades a “free” education in public universities, subsidized by taxes of the whole population and with high costs for the public budget.

In August this year, Brazil government enacted an affirmative action law requiring federal universities to reserve half of their admission spots for students from public secondary schools, with racial quotas prioritizing the blacks, pardos and indigenous. Additionally, a plan for the adoption of quotas for blacks in the federal bureaucracy should be announced in late November, representing important gains for the Black Movement. Nevertheless, it is relevant to point that the protection of white privilege is an issue that is not limited to the problem of access to quality education and job opportunities. The historically very high concentration of land ownership inherited by white elites and also the regressive tax system that largely lifts the burden from the higher income class are not only issues that protect an economic elite, but mostly a white economic elite.

The plurality and differences of the Brazilian society are not only in the color of the population, but also reinforced by a socioeconomic stratification in which the majority of the black and pardos remain in the lower class, while the white enjoys the effects of white privilege. To believe that Brazil is a racial paradise, in essence, is to deny the relevance of these issues of inequality and dominance.

Is Brazil’s New Affirmative Action Policy Fair?

Posted on by

by Satoru Kishi

On August 29th, 2012, the Brazilian government passed a law to oblige all public universities in Brazil to ensure fifty percent of their admission seats to the poorer background students. The fifty-nine federal universities in Brazil, usually free of charge, have only four years to implement this law (Romeo, 2012). The objective of this affirmative action is to bring major changes in the social structure and lessen the income inequality in Brazil.

First, this law will generate a great transformation of social structure or the seats of the elite jobs. Currently, most of the elite jobs or high wage jobs are possessed by the so-called “whites”. If the new affirmative policy were to be enforced, it would create better chances for blacks or Africans and the indigenous people to be educated in great universities, fewer for the affluent whites, automatically assuring more possibility for the poor background blacks to attain high-wage, elite jobs, like becoming a lawyer and a governor. This will also contribute in reducing the gap between the rich and poor, or whites and blacks, since the people with poorer background will have better opportunity.

Despite of this reputable intention, there are questions of whether this affirmative action policy is just or not. There are many aspects to this issue.

From the Utilitarian perspective, since this was signed by the President and given consensus by eighty out of eighty-one senators, who were elected by its citizens through domestic impartial election, the implementation of the affirmative policy is justified, because it signifies the majority of its opinion, maximizing the utility and happiness of all people.

For the libertarians, the only consideration for them is whether this policy violates the fundamental individual human rights. Through giving an invented example, this issue can be seen clearly. Let’s assume that that the university admission requires students to take a central exam. A black woman score 50 out of 100 and a white woman score 70 out of 100. With the new policy implemented in four years, a university may take this poorer black woman, rather than highly educated rich white woman. Some may say this is unjust, prejudice and violate the white woman’s individual rights, because she is discriminated in something that she cannot control. On the other hand, some may claim that this is just, when considering the fact that this black woman could not afford to attend a good high school as the white woman, due to economic reasons. This corrective reasoning of justifying the affirmative action is still arguable.

Another justification for the affirmative action is compensatory reasoning. From the 16th to the 19th century, the “whites” or former Europeans had been importing massive African slaves, seven times of the number exported to the United States, and forced them and the indigenous people to work on agriculture and mining, with cheap labor or for free (Telles, 2009). To compensate for historical exploitation, it is arguable that this affirmative action is temporary justifiable, until the blacks reaches the social and economic equality as whites. In contrast, there are many people who argue that “why do the present people have to pay for what their ancestors or what people in the past did” (Sandel, n.d.).

Another possible justification for this affirmative action is that universities are better off to have more diversity, whether people are coming from different social, economic, national, ethnic or racial background. Assuming that the universities’ main objective is to educate students and make them attain better jobs, having diversity in universities is an advantage, because it creates an opportunity for students from different background to share their opinions, cultivate in way of thinking and learn how people from diverse background look at the world differently (Sandel, n.d.).

Currently the public universities in Brazil is said to be better than the private ones (Romeo, 2012). However, due to the implementation of the affirmative law, there may be a large flow of educated white professors and students into private school, who dislike blacks, lowering the educational level of Brazil’s public university.

References:

Romeo, S. (2012). Brazil enacts affirmative action law for universities. The New York Times: Americas. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/world/americas/brazil-enacts-affirmative- action-law-for-universities.html?_r=0

Sandel, A. (n.d.). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? Episode 09. Harvard University Lecture. Podcast retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUhReMT5uqA

Telles, E. E. (2009). Affirmative action in Brazil. Wideangle. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/lessons/brazil-in-black-and-white/discrimin ation-and-affirmative-action-in-brazil/4323/

Nihonjinron and the Latin Americanization of Race

Posted on by

by Kana Masaki

The chapter says that American race relation is becoming Latin America–like. It has two main characteristics. The first one is color–blind racism, which denies the salience of race. In other words, it’s a racism that acts as if race doesn’t matter at all even when it does matter. The second one is triracial stratification system. It consists of whites at the top, honorary whites in the middle, and the collective blacks at the bottom. According to the authors, the existence of honorary whites can lessen conflicts between whites and blacks. The author also says that these three groups are stratified based on color. Racial approaches in Latin America are racial mixing, triracial stratification system, colorism and so on. The reason why Latin Americanization is happening now is because of the increase of racial minorities, color–blind racism and so on. The date proves Latin Americanization is happening such as gaps in terms of income. As a conclusion, the author predicts the change of racial politics in the future.

We think Nihonjinron and Japanese racial supremacy during Japanese emperor period have something to do with Latin Americanization. Basically, Latin Americanization is making white supremacy even bigger. Nihonjinron and Japanese racial supremacy thoughts also made Japanese people superior. During the Japanese colonization against Korea, the government made some documents written about Japanese supremacy such as hakkou-ichiu. It says Japan should be the one who controls East Asia because they are superior. Also, the government needed to create their own identity, Japaneseness to catch up with Western countries. Nihonjinron shows off claims of Japanese uniqueness and homogeneity of shared culture, blood, language.

Personally, I thought this reading was interesting. It made me realize that racial inequalities still exist. Always, racial inequality is difficult to feel for me, because I live in Japan and never been to America and other racially mixed countries. My personal question is whether whites realize they are still discriminating against honorary whites and blacks. Do they know that they are just getting involved with color–blind racism trend? Do they really think that inequalities against blacks are because of the lack of efforts or something? I think white supremacy never disappears unless they realize they are just going with color–blind racism trend. It’s maybe a psychological thing, but once people get a supremacy, they tend not to throw it away, because they’ve already known how nice to be superior to others. In this sense, supremacy is really scary, I think.

Skin Color in Brazil

Posted on by

by Mari Ryoha

Brazil is the big immigrant country. In 16th Brazil was colonized by Portugal. At that time, intermarriage between European and indigenous people started. Also intermarriage between European and African who sold as slave in Brazil, or indigenous people and African started. In such ways Brazil has generated diversity of race. Through such history racial mixing was identity of Brazil. Brazilian regarded racial mixing as good thing, and was proud of this moral consciousness compared with the United States. It was like ideology of non-racism. Also Brazilian prefers using the word “color” to using “race” because “color” shows the continuous and ambiguous aspects of Brazilian notion.

Brazil has three methods for classifying racial groups. First method is conducted by Brazilian census. The institution carries out the census is called IBGE. IBGE classify the race into five categories, white (branco), brown (pardo), black (preto), and Asian/yellow (amarelo), Indigenous (Indigena). The census carries out based on self-identification. And second method is popular discourse. People classify themselves into certain category by skin color. When they classify the race, they often use the word “moreno”. It covers the vast range of skin color. This term shows Brazilian’s ambiguous race notion well. Third method is racial classification by the black movement system. This classification only two terms, “branco” and “negro”. This classification makes contrast to the classification which uses the word of “moreno”.

In these days, “negro” shows the pride of blackness. Also this black movement argued that Brazil had racial discrimination. It destroyed the ideology of non-racism. Actually racial discrimination exists in Brazil. They have big gap between white and brown, black. Recently Brazilian government recognized racial discriminations within the country. Then Brazilian government has tried to “Affirmative Action”. “Affirmative Action” should aim to enhance racial equity and confirm self-respect among black people, evolve the racial diversity among all social classes. In Brazil “Affirmative Action” passed through Brazilian national assembly two months ago. Brazil has to remove extreme inequality and culture of racism and the situation which certain race can’t be raised to high social class.

I was so surprised at the Brazilian view point toward race. It was interesting compared with the United States. Brazilian government doesn’t hide the racial discrimination. And they tried to overcome the discrimination. I think their attitude toward racism is positive. Also “Affirmative Action” is a landmark law. Although there are many points of improvement, I expect Brazil to actualize the non-racism.

Should the U.S. Still Have to Keep the Gate Locked?

Posted on by

by Ayaka Nakamura

In the last class discussion, our group mainly talked about how we could determine who shall have a dual citizenship and who shall not. Although there are many existing criteria to allow foreigners to have a visa, such as blood relationship, age, an ability of language, and criminal records, Japan still has not admit a dual citizenship. Then, questions came up to my mind, what do we need to be a citizen of a country? Do we really have to meet the criteria to live in the country? As I had strong interests in one of lecture topics, migration, through “Salsa and Ketchup: Transnational Migrants Straddle Two Worlds,” written by Peggy Levitt, I would like to deepen my knowledge about immigrants in the U.S.

One of interesting findings is that keeping homeland’s culture and language does not really matter to live in the U.S. Although an ability to speak English is necessary to assimilate into natives, Mexicans, the largest immigrant group, seem to have a difficulty to adopt American ways than other groups, according to a research by USA TODAY. In the article, Jacob Vigdor, a Duke University associate professor of public studies and economics, sets up three categories that distinguishes immigrants from U.S. natives: “economic (employment, occupations, education, homeownership); cultural (ability to speak English, marriage to natives, number of child); civic (naturalization, military service),” and discusses Mexicans have the lowest assimilation of any immigrant group.

Kirk Semple in “Moving to the U.S. and Amassing a Fortune, No English Needed.” seems to explain the reason why Mexicans hardly assimilate. Semple talks about Mr. Sanchez, an immigrant from Mexico, who was selling tortilla chips on the road but realized an American dream in the U.S. Mr. Sanchez came to the U.S. as an immigrant to have a successful life and opened a food company, Puebla Foods that earns millions of dollars now. Mr. Sanchez says he cannot speak English because he has not needed to speak English for his success. He targets only Spanish speakers and works with Spanish speakers living in the U.S. Moreover, Semple introduces another example, Mr. Zhang, a Chinese immigrant, who owns a cell-phone accessory company. Mr. Zhang targets Chinese markets in the U.S. and talks that English ability did not matter to establish a company. He says the progress of technology enabled his business to reach a success. He communicates with English speakers through the Internet where numbers of language translating systems are going on. Thus, his lack of ability to speak English did not really matter.

However, to be a U.S. citizen, Mr. Sanchez and Mr. Zhang have to pass the naturalization test that includes English tests. Although the U.S. society allow them to success in business and have wealthy lives, the immigration system cannot give them permissions to be citizens. It seems that the current system does not meet the situation of the U.S. society. I would not say it should be changed and let all of those immigrants to be citizens, but the criteria to judge whether a person is proper to be a citizen might have to be reconsidered. The U.S., the melting pot of the world, would be the first country that accepts an idea of multiple citizenship or global citizenship.

References

Nasser, Haya El. “Study: Some Immigrants Assimilate Faster.” USA TODAY. (May 13, 2008). http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-05-13-assimilation_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Semple, Kirk. “Moving to the U.S. and Amassing a Fortune, No English Needed.” New York Times. (November 8, 2011).

Diversity and discrimination

Posted on by

by Rina Terasaki

The discussion held in the last class reminded me about Japanese government’s policy of foreign residents. So today I would like to choose a topic about immigrants in Japanese society and express what I feel about the system, with telling some stories that I have heard from my  friend. First of all, I feel that Japanese society is quite exclusive about other nationality or cultures. Even though more than two million foreigners are having life here as foreign resident nowadays, it seems to be very ‘Japanese’ in the political scenes. Not similar to those multicultural nations, foreign residents in Japan seems to be treat as ‘outsider’ in invisible way. I even sometimes happen to hear that some people or the government says Japan is a racially homogenous nation. It sounds to be like they do not recognize there is not only one ‘culture’ or forms of people’s life, even sounds they are ignoring those people’s existence.

One of my best friend, who is a Korean resident in Japan (zainichi-Korean), has told me dissatisfaction about the government’s political system. For example, she and her family does pay taxes and pay for whatever same with those who has Japanese nationality, but she has no right to vote for elections. Also has no right to become a national civil servant. I felt there is a big discrimination between Japanese and non-Japanese residents with just a reason of their ‘nationality.’  Even she was born in Japan and spend almost the same lifestyle with me, her rights of participation in government are very little.

Then it reminds me the story I heard in the discussion in last class. Some (or might be many) countries accept dual citizenship, but Japan does not. I came up with a reason: I think Japanese government try not to have people  whose mind is half Japanese and half others. For example, if there are many people that have Japanese citizenship but thoughts are anti-Japanese, then Japan, as a nation, would be ungovernable. Population of Japan is also not that big compared to others, so it might be a crisis when non-Japanese residence includes and give influences to the original thoughts and the norm and might destroy the racial unity in Japan.

To conclude, in my opinion, place where someone was born is just a place, nationality is only for convenience and it should not be an identifiable tool. Sometimes it is needed to think decidedly between nationality and identity. Therefore, people’s action and rights has to be freedom beyond nationality.

Resources:

2012年6月13日公表 法務省 2011年度登録外国人統計 http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001089591

Accommodation to another community

Posted on by

by Young-im Kim

In this global society, we can easily find immigrants who moved to another country for better living. The first generation tends to maintain their home cultures and languages than the 2nd and the 3rd generation does. The 2nd and 3rd generations who were born and raised in their host country might be naturally socialized by the host country. They may follow the rules and norms of the host country. However, the first generation people were already socialized by their home country. They might experience the moment that they have to choose the norm to follow. They may hesitate to access or resist the host country’s community. Why they tend to keep their identity and what makes us distinct as an individual, culture, and language community? Do we have to have singular identity? and can we decide national characteristics as a stereotype?

I think finding one’s identity is the process of lineation but not just from national characteristics. For example, Japanese people sometimes argue they use indirect communication skills and Westerners tend to be direct. I think it depends on the situation and the standard of “indirect”. Culture cannot be generalized and not just from an inherent. It might be an easy way to understand the culture by means of stereotyping; in fact, I feel the stereotype makes difficult to understand complicated individual.

Furthermore, culture has been changing and dynamic through transnational mobility. However, as me being a foreigner in Japan, Japanese tend to like drawing a distinction between foreigner and Japanese. I studied “Nihonjinron” which means a subject about Japanese. I think no country has researched themselves as a subject. Tricks (2011) also argue Japanese seem unwilling to make changes in their corporate cultures that would allow new ideas to percolate to the top. We do not need to severely classify the identity. Between communities, we have a lot of possibilities not just problems. Sen (2006) mentioned “The artificial diminution of human beings into singular identities can have divisive effects, making the world potentially much more incendiary.” We do not have to exclude other cultures as well as be assimilated by other cultures. I believe global village is made of Mosaic, which is not fixed and solid.

References

Sen,A.(2006). Identity and violence: The illusion of destiny. W.W. Norton & Co.: New York.

Tricks, H. (2011). Summoning the next generation of leaders. In McKinsey & Co. (Ed.) Reimagining Japan: The quest for a future that works. Vixmedia: San Francisco, CA.

Immigrants as Majority – The Case of U.A.E.

Posted on by

by Akie Kuwano

In the age of globalization, it seems that the concept of nation state is not viable any more. Numbers of different ethnicities now exist in one state, although the amount of foreign-born population varies across the countries. While Japan maintains its foreign population low as 1.7%, U.A.E positions its opposite; according to the census in 2005, nearly 80% of their population is foreign-born. Immigrants are likely to seen as minorities in a country like Japan, however, that is not the case in U.A.E. This essay examines the reason why U.A.E. attracts so many immigrants and the problems they and hosting population face in new country in an aim to provide rather new insight to look at the issues concerning migration.

Firstly, people migrate to U.A.E in search of work. Most of them came from lower-class families of India, Philippines, and surrounding Middle East countries. Those countries suffer from growing population and lack of employment while U.A.E. seeks for the work force to bring forward its development accompanied with the rise of oil price since 1973.

Although its economy has long been supported by those immigrants, U.A.E. is not welcoming foreign labor force in recent years. Out of all the working population in U.A.E., only 9.5% is its own citizens. In other words, almost all the working population is consisted of the immigrants. In an attempt to modify this extraordinary gap, the government has passed the law which demands companies to preferentially employ U.A.E. citizens. The law has also placed Arab immigrants over Non-Arab immigrants, creating the hierarchy even within the immigrant population. Despite of these efforts, the unemployment rate of U.A.E. citizens hasn’t been improved. Because U.A.E. government scatters money earned by its oil export to their own citizens, almost all the citizens are wealthy enough to be highly educated and thus are selective about choosing their occupation.

Regarding these facts and figures listed above, it is important to reconsider the definition of nation and citizenship. Who it is that the national government is responsible of; the immigrants who are mass majority of the population or the citizens who are minority in number? Are citizens who are mostly unemployed still credible of endowments given based on their citizenship? Since Japan is now in need of opening its gate to the world of migration, considering these issues U.A.E. is facing might offer us greater insight of Japan’s future policy in migration.

REFERENCES:

Hoffman M. (2012). Only Immigrants Can Save Japan. The Japan Times. Retrieved October 21, 2012, from http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/fl20121021x3.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+japantimes+%28The+Japan+Times%3A+All+Stories%29

鷹木恵子「U.A.E.の出稼ぎ外国人労働者にみる文化融合と文化摩擦　―ドバイでのインタビュー調査から―」（『国際学レビュー』１号）

「No.985人口問題で不安を抱えるアラブ首長国連邦」中東TODAY　[http://www.tkfd.or.jp/blog/sasaki/2008/04/post_59.html]（最終検索日：2012年10月21日

International Migration

Posted on by

by Wataru Yukita

International migration has increased in recent years. In Japan, some people say that Japan should accept many immigrants to increase production power because of a decline in working age population. However, is that right? I have a skeptical view for this opinion.

At the beginning, I agree that Japan becomes more tolerance to foreigners. In Japan, many people (especially in Internet) agree to deport illegal immigrant who have worked properly, it is funny in common sense. Giving permanent residency to the foreigners who work seriously in low wage job and raise children born in Japan is a right policy, compared to give preferential treatment to idle Japanese. I think that accepting many immigrants in order to increase economic growth without thinking is the opposite.

First, who is pay cost to accept immigrants? Though there is no problem for company and farmers that simply want cheap labor, local government and autonomy must ensure house for immigrants, education on their children, social welfare and so on. Many local governments confront shortage of revenue. So, could they take measures of these problems? I think that it is very difficult. If many children of immigrants could not get education and they make poor, Japan will face social problems of difference in race like western countries. Immigrants have human right, not machine. Because we accept “human”, we must guarantee life as human beings for everyone. If we wouldn’t do so, our society will collapse in morality. Company and other organization that simply want cheap labor should be criticized.

Second, are there any people who really want to immigrate to Japan? Many developing countries have a problem of decline birth rate and a growing population of elderly people while economic growth. Many workers are in need in these countries as well as Japan. If Japan promotes immigration policy, Can Japan collected many immigrants? I have doubts about this idea.

Finally, multiculturalism is very difficult to achieve. This can be presumed from European countries and United States that have accepted many immigrants. In these countries, immigrant policy is a major issue in election every time. Of course, this is true of presidential election in United States coming soon. Japan, have never experienced of acceptance of immigrants, are not even start these discussion in level in the Member of Parliament.

That is why I disagree to accept many immigrants in Japan. However, we need to discuss this problem for the future in Japan.

Will Japan accept dual citizenship someday?

Posted on by

by Rina Yoshikawa

Since the word “globalization” has become popular all over the world, many people began to meet new people that have different language or culture each other. Migrating to new countries for better jobs and international marriage are not unusual things anymore and it is easier to move across borders now.

However there are still many problems to live over borders since we do not share all the same laws or rules in the world. Even some policies have completely opposite views between countries. One is how nationality is granted when child is born that depends on whether the country takes “jus soli” or “jus sanguinis”.

I have a friend who is half-Japanese and half-French, born and grown up in France. She owns both citizenships since French law grants nationality based on the child’s place of birth and Japanese law grants nationality according to the child’s blood relations. She is now turning 22 and has to give up one of the citizenship. She is aware that she is comfortable with being as French but is not completely true. Since she was young she has tried to know what Japan is like and studied Japanese to communicate with her relatives living in Japan. It must be hard to choose one from two that both consists one’s self and cannot be changed.

Not only her but there are millions of people in a same situation in Japan. Children cannot choose where to be born. This is just adults’ ego in a society. Japan put too much emphasis on nation’s loyalties that are believed only who owns Japanese blood, are able to behave just like Japanese and looks like Japanese. Other excuses tend to be left away. I feel like this is just we are trying to protect ourselves and stay where we are without any advance or moving backward.

To allow dual citizenship is a big issue that concerns many things which may change Japanese society or even history drastically. It takes few years to adjust between international laws and Japanese ones. However, I think those people in a neutral situation have right to insist on both citizenship just like what they are. We cannot draw a complete line for it. Those cases that hold international matters such as mixed children will be more familiar since globalization develops more and more, and society needs to catch up and make changes as it goes. Japan is not an isolated island anymore.