Showing a dizzing level of intellectual dishonesty--or perhaps just plain stupidity--Arudou likens the word "gaijin" (written 外人, which is short for 外国人, meaning "outside country person") to the "n-word" in English. He writes:
Question: "What do you call a black man with a Ph.D. in neurobiology from Harvard who works as a brain surgeon at Johns Hopkins, earns seven figures a year, and runs one of the world's largest philanthropies?"
Answer: "N--ger."
Hardy har. Now let's rephrase.
Question: "What do you call a white man with degrees from top-tier schools who has lived in Japan for more than two decades, contributes to Japanese society as a university educator, is fluent in Japanese, and has Japanese citizenship?"
Answer: "G--jin."
Take, for example, this next quote:
Nobody who knows I'm a naturalized Japanese citizen calls me a gaikokujin anymore — it's factually incorrect. But there are plenty of people (especially foreigners) who don't hesitate to call me a gaijin, often pejoratively.
Thus gaijin is a caste. No matter how hard you try to acculturate yourself, become literate and lingual, even make yourself legally inseparable from the putative "naikokujin" (the "inside people," whoever they are), you're still "not one of us."
Let's look at the logic here. "Nobody who knows I'm a naturalized Japanese citizen calls me gaikokujin anymore. . ." Who are 'nobody'? Japanese? foreigners? I ask because in the next line he says "plenty of people [not nobody] (especially foreigners) who don't hesitate to call me a gaijin. . ." I guess Arudou is trying to make a point about the distinction between 'gaikokujin' and 'gaijin', but it's muddled.
Next, Arudou talks about the struggle to acculturate (a word I'm uncomfortable with anyway. . .how do we 'acculturate'?). No matter how hard you try, says Arudou, "you're still 'not one of us'". Didn't he just say that "especially foreigners" pejoritively call him 'gaijin'? Who or what, exactly, is Arudou threatened by? He seems to want to talk about Japanese notions of homogeneity, but references foreigners use of the term 'gaijin'.
Finally, I find it hard to reconcile Arudou's argument with the respect that I often feel from Japanese. Even though I'm a 'gaijin' people consider my social status when addressing me and interacting with me. Moreover, even people who don't know my particular social status (which isn't anything special by the way) will add 'san' to 'gaijin' (gaijin-san) when addressing me; a sure sign of no ill-intentions.
Arudou's knee-jerk reaction to the term 'gaijin' is trivial at best and extremely damaging at worse. I only wish he didn't have such a prominent public platform with which to broadcast his myopic assessment. It's a disservice to those who are not familiar with the history of Blacks in America, not to mention those who are the carriers of that history, to liken the word 'gaijin' to the 'n-word'--the comparison is dishonest and doesn't hold any water.
Link to Arudou's original column.
Link to responses to the column.
Posts
2 comments:
Not sure what you don't get about the the paragraph talking about how nobody (that means anybody at all) calls him a "gaikokujin" but plenty of people call him "gaijin". The point he's very clearly making is that "gaikokujin" is a factual description of a legal status, whereas "gaijin" is a mere label with no recognised definition that's arbitrarily applied to anybody the speaker believes to be an outsider. The same concept becomes clear when you talk about Japanese abroad. A J-citizen in the US would happily accept that in that country they are "gaikokujin" but would baulk at the idea of being called "gaijin". In other words, the two words absolutely do not have the same meaning.
And there is no way that "gaijin-san" can be considered respectful. All the "san" means in that context is that they are referring to you. There's always a more appropriate form of address, such as your name, "okyakusan", "oniisan", "kihou", "sochira", i.e. the things they would call a Japanese citizen under the same circumstances. To call you "gaijin-san" means that the most important detail of your existence in that place and time is that you do not belong there.
Opinions on the whole "is gaijin offensive" debate have always been split. And not just amongst foreign residents. A great many J-citizens, especially those with some experience with the outside world also take great issue with people being called "gaijin". To them, it just reeks of "alien outsider", so in contexts where it wouldn't be necessarily inappropriate to make the distinction (e.g. "many foreigners gather at this bar on a Friday") they prefer to use more descriptive words such as "seiyoujin" or "oubeijin" - words that actually mean something.
Coal,
I still think that Arudou's argument is muddled. I don't buy his premise that "gaikokujin" and "gaijin" are entirely distinct words with separate etymologies.
I agree that "gaijin" has a generalizing affect and can have negative connotations. However, I totally disagree with Arudou's equation of "gaijin" with the "n-word". That's ludicrous. I'm simply trying to argue that the use of "gaijin" in Japan is much more complicated--not as clear cut as the "n-word" in America.
Take my example of "gaijin-san". No one would try to get away with "Mr. n---ger". Also, I've heard Japanese parents scold children when they blurt out "gaijin" in my presence. In other words, "gaijin" is more nuanced and contextual--not at all like the "n-word". You make a similar point in your last couple of sentences.
Best,
Nippon Blogger
(Blog Nippon)
Post a Comment