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.
You are going so far off-topic it's not even funny. You're also spreading lies.
Let's take the examples of the crusades as "Christian agression". Let's see ... what were the crusades ?
The First Crusade was launched in 1095 by Pope Urban II with the primary goal of responding to the appeal from Byzantine Emperor Alexius I. The Emperor requested that western volunteers come to their aid and repel the Seljuk Turks from Anatolia, modern day Turkey. An additional goal soon became the principal objective - the Christian reconquest of the sacred city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land and the freeing of the Eastern Christians from Islamic rule. Both knights and peasants from many nations of Western Europe travelled over land and by sea t
So the crusades were a defensive action, by one brand of Christianity on behalf of another (which obviously is extremely contradictory with your claims about tolerance) ...
Labeling the crusades Christian agression is like labeling Poland's actions during the september campaign of 1939 as offensive.
Both the nazis, soviets and muslims, obviously label these acts as massively agressive, a position that has been gaining ground for some reason that defies logic.
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.
Religions are, first and foremost, DEFINITIONS of good (and evil). The disagreement is first and foremost about that.
Stoning of women, for example, is an obvious islamic good, and a christian evil. Slavery is an islamic good and a christian evil.
The fact that you invoke Paul's acquiescence to slavery as an American defending islamic slavery is beyond hypocritical. Paul was, in case you forgot, executed by a force that pushed slavery on the world, because he gave slaves the dangerous idea that they were the equals of their masters, even if any contract, even a slavery contract had to be respected.
You, on the other hand, do not have such a massive army pushing slavery breathing down your neck. And yet you do not even manage Paul's level of moral concern. Nowhere in your diatribe defending muslim slavery do we find the evident claim Paul was executed : that slaves are human beings, no more and no less than their masters. Even with an army abolishing slavery defending you, you cannot unequivocally state that slavery is a bad thing.
If further illustration of the anti-slavery nature of Christianity is necessary, just look at what happened immediately after the introduction of Christianity in just about every country : the abolishment of slavery. Ireland is perhaps the most well known example of this, because the introduction of Christianity in many countries is not well described. But one might state simply : the entirety of western europe was a slave society in the year 100, when Christianity started spreading. By 700 slavery was abolished everywhere, save for ireland and the northlands, who were not christianized.
Perhaps an even better example would be Northern africa. Slavery was thoroughly embedded in that country in the year 100. Christianity spread, and it was abolished completely before 200 years passed. 300 years northern africa would remain peaceful under christian rule.
But, as we already have established, today northern africa is moslem, and is a slave society. Even for the non-slaves it is a horribly segregated society (much like the islamic enclaves in Europe btw).
But back to Paul, whom you so forgetfully attack : Even worse than the aforementioned difference, with the world's most powerful and anti-slavery army protecting you, you
You misspelled "intergration"
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear