Slashdot Mirror
Google Earth Raises Discrimination Issue In Japan
Hugh Pickens writes "The Times (UK) reports that by allowing old maps to be overlaid on satellite images of Tokyo, Osaka, and Kyoto, Google has unwittingly created a visual tool that has prolonged an ancient discrimination, says a lobbying group established to protect the human rights of three million burakumin, members of the sub-class condemned by the old feudal system in Japan to unclean jobs associated with death and dirt. 'We tend to think of maps as factual, like a satellite picture, but maps are never neutral, they always have a certain point of view,' says David Rumsey, a US map collector. Some Japanese companies actively screen out burakumin-linked job seekers, and some families hire private investigators to dig into the ancestry of fiances to make sure there is no burakumin taint. Because there is nothing physical to differentiate burakumin from other Japanese and because there are no clues in their names or accent, the only way of establishing whether or not they are burakumin is by tracing their family. By publishing the locations of burakumin ghettos with the modern street maps, the quest to trace ancestry is made easier, says Toru Matsuoka, an opposition MP and member of the Buraku Liberation League. Under pressure to diffuse criticism, Google has asked the owners of the woodblock print maps to remove the legend that identifies the ghetto with an old term, extremely offensive in modern usage, that translates loosely as 'scum town.' 'We had not acknowledged the seriousness of the map, but we do take this matter seriously,' says Yoshito Funabashi, a Google spokesman." The ancient Japanese caste system was made illegal 150 years ago, but silent discrimination remains. The issue is complicated by allegations of mob connections in the burakumin anti-discrimination organizations.
this is japan remember, the place where blood type pseudo science and other rampant nonsense are seen as perfectly reasonable and evil foreigners have to go through hell to even have a chance at buying a house (good luck getting a loan) its the most racist and discriminating culture in the industrialized world so this doesn't really come as a suprise at all just another quirk in their culture.
Well, the article does argue that it simply "raises" this issue, not that it causes it or somehow makes it worse. It's an interesting juxtaposition of an ancient stupidity and a modern wonder.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Yep, there are some small ethnic groups which look very distinct from other East Asian peoples, such as the Ainu people who, if anything, look more like Finns than anything else.
You just got troll'd!
Actually, yes. Ainu (at least if they are full-blooded) do look different. Ainu are the indigenous population of Japan, before the arrival of the Yamato Japanese (what we (and they) generally think of as "Japanese" today). They also speak a different language, although even in Hokkaido, where most of the remaining Ainu live, the Ainu language is at least threatened if not outright endangered.
Beyond that, there is tremendous variation in the way Japanese look (yes, I get the joke, but still). Some look very Korean, for example. And some Koreans look quite a bit like Japanese. Go talk about that in either country if you want to rev up some extra controversy :) When I lived in Japan, I knew a Korean woman who never carried her gaijin card because she looked very Japanese, dressed Japanese, and spoke native-level Japanese. She was an immigrant, but it would pretty hard to tell, so she could get away with not carrying her card.
Some Japanese are kind of Chinese-looking, too. They definitely don't all look alike. There is also a small Vietnamese community in Japan. More are around Osaka than Tokyo, but all together there are probably only 20-30 thousand, IIRC.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/04/taiwan_google_earth/
Yup...
In Japan (and most Asian countries), lineage is considered much more important than it is in the U.S. If your daughter is marrying someone, it's common to check their lineage, and expected of you to offer it up under the right circumstances.
The complaint against Google is that they've made it easy to identify someone whose lineage goes back to these "scum towns" where only members of this untouchable caste could live. It doesn't matter that you're the youngest vice president at Toyota, your great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather comes from a scumtown, so you're scum too to your fiance's father.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
http://www.ogleearth.com/2005/10/taiwan_it_is_th.html
They changed it days later. Also, that Register writer clearly didn't know jack about Taiwan, given his tone.
In ancient Japan, anything to do with death, or other unclean jobs like leatherworkers, was taboo. People who did those things had to live in separate villages. Nowadays, people don't know where most of those ghettos were. Google published a series of scholarly maps that show where they are, now people can easily trace families back to these areas because Japanese family registration was fixed to ancestral address until recently.
It's like these areas are cursed to the Japanese, even if everyone's forgotten where they were, and any family originally from the area is tainted by that curse, no matter what that family has done since.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Such grammar understates how formal and regularized the Japanese feudal system was. These were formal government maps.
In addition, no one needs a map to discriminate on the basis of race - the map is controversial because it expedites discovering a likely lower class heritage that would otherwise be lost to history. The equivalent in the U.S. would be discrimination against whites based on birth or heritage in rural and undeveloped areas of the South, or to a lesser degree what is often termed "flyover country".
As much as I don't agree with Iran's policy towards Israel, I must object to Iran being explicitly anti-Jewish.
Their gripe is with the state of Israel and not Jews. Calling a country that is home to the second-largest Jewish population in the Middle East (largest of course being Israel), and where Jews are explicitly protected by the consitution, as being anti-Jewish is prejudice at best.
I'm afraid I must disagree with what is a highly selective reading of history and theology.
Christianity was not "anti-slavery" from day one. In fact Paul explicitly condones the practice of slavery, telling a run-away slave (Onesimus) to go back to his master (Philemon). Now he does tell the master not to mistreat or abuse his slaves, but Paul is handed an opportunity on a platter to condemn slavery and he quite explicitly refuses to do so.
When abolition was being debated, it was generally the pro-slavery people who were seen as have the strict biblical view, and the anti-slavery people who were seen as representing a more liberal, progressive, interpretative version of Christianity. (Similar to gay marriage today?)
Historically it was Islam that was known for tolerance of non-believers, to the extent that many regions of the Byzantine Empire preferred to surrender to Muslim invaders who would largely tolerate whatever brand of Christianity they practiced rather than their Christian overloads who were endlessly persecuting minority sects because of differences over the interpretation of the Holy Trinity, and Arianism etc.
From the persecutors' perspective, is it not better to cut off one's hand than to allow it to sin? Why allow a heretical sect to potentially lead orthodox Christians into false beliefs and so condemn them to hell? On the Muslim side, the Quoran says "Let there be no compulsion in religion". They saw all Christian sects as being equally misguided but protected by Islamic law as people trying to worship the right god at least.
On the other hand there are many stories of Saladin in particular as being the model for the later medieval concept of knightly chivalry. And as far as antisemitism goes, the history of the Crusades does not particularly bolster your theory that Christianity is all about peaceful coexistence and respect for those with different religious views whereas Islam is all about killing people. Both sides committed what we would see as atrocities, but instances of mercy and kindness to the conquered are more plentiful on the Muslim side than the Christian.
I am neither Christian nor Muslim. From what I've seen and from what I've read no religion (or atheism, or metaphysical quasi-religions such as the Marxist dieletic) has a monopoly on good or evil. Certainly your view of Islam as being intrinsically evil and backwards might be tenable if you look at the last 300 years (when most of the Muslim world hasn't done much) but when you take a longer view the result is very different.
After quickly checking Wikipedia:
* First off its apparently 251,388,301 English speakers in the US not 300 million.
* Secondly, the rest of the English language speakers that Wikipedia lists, total over 321 million, and that of course doesn't include those people who have it as a second language outside of those countries that are listed, although it is including those who have English as a Second and Third language.
* I don't think its safe to assume that the majority of Engish speakers live in the US and thus use the malformed US spelling for words such as "colour". Its just a spelling reform pushed on US English speakers thats been adopted by some portion of the world's speakers. It is not superior or in any way more logical really.
That said I do expect that the web will be the tool that ends up encouraging the rest of the world to spell using the US spellings, simply because the US dominates the web and because it has such a forceful cultural presence world wide.
Up here in Canada we seem to use a mix of both systems of Spelling, although I bet most Canadians think they are using British Spelling and view that as correct. In fact at least with my own spelling I spell some things the British Way and others the American way. I consider the British spellings and the Oxford English Dictionary to be the final arbiters of all issues concerning spelling for me personally. I am aware of the inconsistencies for the most part, but spelling the word "airplane" as "aeroplane" just looks as wrong to me as spelling "colour" as "color" would, or "theatre" as "theater".
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
The things you describe do sound bad, but they don't mesh with my experience.
I'm white and was American (now I'm a Japanese citizen), and I've never noticed any significant amount of anti-white discrimination in Japan.
I've never heard of that letter to the editor you're talking about, but that could just be because I live out in the country. Still, it doesn't sound much worse than the treatment I used to see given to Asian-Americans (granted, I lived in the South, so YMMV).
As for banning foreigners, do some places do it? Yeah. Is it common? I've never seen in person a place that does it, and besides, I don't know of a single case where the foreigner in question sued and didn't win.
I've never seen a problem with the word "gaijin" and can't imagine why some people (uniformly white as far as I've seen) get so bent out of shape over it.
Also, are you sure that those people could understand you? The government tests don't test pitch, but it's vital to a proper accent.
I'm not going to argue with anti-Korean/Chinese racism because it's true. Although contrary to what you say, the zainichi issue isn't because they aren't allowed citizenship, but because they won't go get citizenship (Japan is Jus Sanguinis, not Jus Soli). Otherwise however, I do agree.
As for the nikkei Brazilians, they aren't citizens, they're foreign residents, and the deal is completely optional.
As for the burakumin discrimination, like the Korean/Chinese discrimination, it is true and awful.
Still, either I've been very lucky or you're exaggerating.
I find it disturbing how you managed to change the subject to shameless muslim-bashing (but hey, muslim is the new black...)
Furthermore, your incomplete and biased knowledge of the subject shows that you are actively pursuing knowledge in this field, yet you neglect important pieces of data.
fwiw, I attended a seminar on Ottoman slavery at Cambridge University where it was clearly explained that "slavery" among muslims is not at all the same as it is in the west. think more like "contract labour" or classic hellenistic slavery where the slave is a part of the household and can even inherit the wealth of his master or choose to stay in their service even once he is freed.
furthermore, christianity preaching "peaceful conversion" and being anti-slavery did not translate very well into practice. ask the native-Americans, the Australians and the Africans, plus let us not forget about the forceful conversion of Jews (including forcing them to eat pork). So even with islamic doctrine preaching the release of slaves and their equal treatment at least, why would you ascribe what is happening in these particular countries to islam in general? this is what we call a "generalization" in the true sense of the word, and a dangerous one at that. How many of the muslims you know personally own slaves or approve of it?
Also, linking the barbary-pirates (they are called pirates, not terrorists, but I see where you make the FOX-link) to Ataturk is just about the silliest thing I have heard. Ataturk's actions are founded in the westernization process of the Ottoman empire (the Tanzimat) which started out with the military first. The very long term result of THIS was the sudden pouring in of western literature, translated first by the young Ottoman army officers who had been sent to Europe for higher education. The imported literature obviously contained modern ideas like constitutions, elections, education etc. and nationalism.
Sultan Abdulhamid II's attempt, after his ascension, to stop this process shows that he reacted in panic out of fear of losing all of the throne's power to the parliament. That is why he immediately had the constitution abolished and the parliament shut down. Then follows a period of tyrannic rule under Abdulhamid II which stifles,but can not stop, intellectuals from writing novels, plays, poetry and plain column-style articles in newspapers both in the Ottoman empire as abroad, criticizing the Sultan and demanding the return of the constitution.
Again, as with the first wave of modernization, the military figures play a great role in forcing the Sultan to reinstate the constitution in 1908, called "the second constitutional period". Finally the people get what they want a bicameral democratic system (although one could argue about the efficiency of it all)
It were these things that had a profound impact on Ataturk, i.e. the resentment of a tyrannical sultan and a strong wish for democracy. If you are going to put forward jefferson's bombing of the "muslim" harbors as the reason why the Ottoman government decided to modernize, I think you would be very wrong. I do not wish to downplay the Ottoman-US relations but the defeats at the hands of the Russians were a much larger impetus to reform the military than the sidenote events which you mention.
Furthermore, Ataturk did only away with TWO calpihs, namely Abdulmecid (the last caliph for he was never crowned Sultan) and Sultan Vahdeddin. If by the third caliph you mean Abdulhamid II, Mustafa Kemal's role in this event is quite marginal as he was an almost completely anonymous officer with no popularity outside the military. In a way he did participate in this event but this does not mean that he lead it.
You clearly do not know enough about the subject, the shreds of information which you pieced together serve merely to justify your view on muslims as a barbaric people who thrive on slavery. as I explained above, the fact that the koran regards releasing of slaves as very noble and encourages it, clearly underm
You might note how just about every religion[...]
I wish I had mod points, as this long and bizarre invention of history has to be one of the funniest posts I've read on Slashdot in ages. Whether it's a skilled troll or a "selectively informed" and passionate individual, the gaping omissions, obvious contradictions, and glaring historical inaccuracies contrast the serious and informative tone quite well.
For the tl;dr crowd, some highlights:
- Christianity is the ONLY religion to oppose slavery from the start, however citations about religion and slavery conveniently omit those in the New Testament.
- American Civil War lead to the Barbary Wars through some sort of time vortex, and 19th Century piracy is now referred to as "terrorism"
- Through a super time vortex, Thomas Jefferson was around in this Civil War period, and "created" the American Marines after having purchased and read a Koran
- Iran is "just about the most open Muslim nation"
- There is only one existing secular Muslim country
- Christianity is known for it's non-violent approach to non-believers (from it's inception to present day, I assume)
Amm ... fair enough and Gengis han let you live and go about your relegion but slaughtered you if you opposed him. Standard tactic applied by the Spartans. If you oppose, we will not stop unless your are all dead. If you run away, we will not chase you. Works very well in wars ...
...
As for the Christians living in Muslim societies
1. The Muslims regularily taxed Christians for their faith
2. Converting to the Christian faith (from a Mulsim) is punishable by death
3. Mulsim man marying a Christian Woman is OK so long as kids are Mulsim
4. Mulsim woman marying a Christian man is punishable by death
Think of it like game theory. These rules made sure you win battles and you spread Islam most effectively.
You are going so far off-topic it's not even funny. You're also spreading lies.
Sucks to have your BS pointed out by an anonymous coward, doesn't it?
fair enough and Gengis han let you live and go about your relegion but slaughtered you if you opposed him.
Luckily for us, the Muslims were much more civilized that the Mongols. Citizens in cities taken over by Muslims were given three choices: leave, stay and become citizens and pay the tax (which I discuss below), or continue to fight. This as compared to your Mongols who gave no quarter regardless of the situation, or even as compared to what Christians did during the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades.
1. The Muslims regularily taxed Christians for their faith
Yes. However, people fail to realize that Muslims were "taxed" in the same fashion and at the same amount: 2.5% of one's earnings per year, except it's called Zakat for Muslims and Jizya for non-Muslims. This "tax" as you put it was obligatory on most people -- Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. -- living in the Muslim State, save for a few exceptions (e.g., orphans, widows, the aged, etc. Anyone considered to be a ward of the State did not have to pay and instead received money). The tax went to help care and feed said wards of the State, including non-Muslims. Yes, that's right: if you were a non-Muslim in Muslim Spain, you could count on the State to support you if you were unable to work. There's even a famous Hadith about this.
2. Converting to the Christian faith (from a Mulsim) is punishable by death
The only basis for that ruling that I've found was a judicial ruling dating back to the 11th and 12th centuries, during the Crusades, you'll note. The premise was that yes, if a Muslim converted and was still on Muslim soil, he was guilty of treason to the state. Seeing as how Muslims and Christians were in the Until recently, no one has challenged that ruling. However, in the past few years, as Islam comes out of its religious lethargy, several graduates of Al-Azhar Mosque in Cairo have insisted that, since there is no compulsion in religion, Muslims may freely convert.
3. Mulsim man marying a Christian Woman is OK so long as kids are Mulsim
4. Mulsim woman marying a Christian man is punishable by death ...
I will not argue that what you point out in point 4 does not occur. However, you should realize it is not part of Islam at all. It's a tragic consequence of fundamentalism and a gross misinterpretation of the religion.
Throughout the life of the Prophet, Muslim women found themselves married to people who had yet to convert. This did not incur and immediate divorce or an immediate death sentence. Instead, the Prophet advised these women to have patience and to encourage their husbands to accept Islam for as long as they were able.
Any Muslim is free to marry whomever he or she wants. Muslims are heavily encouraged to marry other Muslims because it makes family life much easier to handle, but they are free to choose as they see fit. Indeed, there are two Muslim men in my mosque who have married non-Muslims, and there is one Muslim woman who married a non-Muslim man, though admittedly the man later converted.
Ne Cede Malis.