As I was leaving the train station, I heard the Japanese national anthem. People were waving flags. Some guy was shouting about “gaikokujin” (“foreigners”) through a loud-speaker. I stopped and stared until a young flag-waving woman raised her bullhorn, looked directly at us and shouted, “GET OUT OF JAPAN!”
Her English was really good.
The Rise of My Noticing Japanese Fascists
I had seen them camped out with flags and loudspeakers in front of banks and train stations spitting rapid-fire Japanese through the feedback of cheap bullhorns: Gaikokujin this, gaikokujin that.
I didn’t think much about Japanese fascists until this happened:
A bus carrying Chinese tourists in the western Japanese city of Fukuoka was surrounded on Wednesday by more than 10 cars carrying Japanese right-wingers, who then banged windows and kicked the sides of the buses while screaming abuse. Police arrived at the scene and the bus left safely.
Even then, the attack seemed politically motivated by a land dispute rather than random hatred. The attack was disturbing, but I didn’t feel targeted. I had spent too many years internalizing my majority status to realize that I was suddenly a minority.
But recent news from Europe has me feeling a little uneasy.
Anti-multicultural Terrorism
If you watched the news, you’ve heard about Anders Breivik, aka Andrew Berwick, the Norwegian far-right-wing “anti-multiculturalist” whose idea of a Utopian culture is detonating car bombs and methodically slaughtering camping school children.
The news was a stomach-churning blend of Columbine and Christian Jihad, dressed up as a martyr’s “ideology.”
I don’t have a problem with religion, but I have an enormous problem with dickheads. Breivik was special breed of dickhead, one using terminology you’d never hear in America: As as anti-multiculturalist, or a “radical monoculturalist,” Breivik was an admirer of what he called Japan’s nationalistic and racial purity. Here’s an excerpt from his manifesto; you can read more of his incorrect ideas about Japan at JapanProbe:
“The most functional countries in the world are Japan and South Korea. … They believe in cultural monoculturalism mixed with a free-market democracy. … We believe in cultural monoculturalism and to a large degree ethnocentrism, because we know that is the only proven way of preserving social cohesion levels required to facilitate a welfare state. We believe … that the fundamental requirement for a democracy and a welfare state is social cohesion and a non-reformable cultural conservative framework. And as history shows, you cannot have social cohesion in a multicultural society. The US illustrates this quite well.”
Just one more point of his:
“Japan’s and South Korea’s post-World War II forty-year economic growth surge without immigration has always been an embarrassment to the immigration and multiculturalism enthusiasts. … The current trend of poaching highly educated foreign nationals is nothing more than a negative spiral.”
Let’s understand, first, that what Breivik’s manifesto calls for is “an open democracy” so long as the culture is radically conservative. You can have any color government you want, as long as it’s white.
Of course, Breivik is probably nuts, and it’s pointless to argue with nuts. But his admiration for Japan may leave some people wondering if the two are actually ideologically aligned.
If you want evidence in the affirmative, you could consider Japan’s resistance to foreign labor. The population is aging faster than any other country in the world, and they’re still resisting employing Japanese speakers from the Philippines.
Is Japan the racist monoculture of Anders Breivik’s dreams? It’s not so simple.
The Perks of Monoculturalism
Japan is monocultural and monoculture has its perks. People usually understand one another, which leads to more social cohesion. Everyone is part of the same “in-group.”
But for most Japanese, monoculture is complicated.
Unlike Breivik’s dream of Norway, Japan isn’t organized on the principle of being “a racist monoculture.” Governments have tried in the past, and that didn’t go well for anybody.
For mainstream Japan, immigration isn’t about something as stupid as racial purity. It’s a quality-of-life issue: Japanese culture is intricate. Learning it is a burden for immigrants and teaching it is a burden on the Japanese.
That isn’t a strength, but dumbing down the culture isn’t an option.
Breivik is taking an oversimplified aspect of Japanese society and pretending it is the central organizing principle. It’s an overvalued idea, and he’s overselling the benefits.
The Strengths of Multiculturalism
Breivik rails against importing foreign professionals into Norway, citing multiculturalism’s failure in the States. This is pretty extreme – even Japan has immigration exceptions for skilled laborers. A quick scan of American innovation from “foreign” minds:
Immigrant inventors were behind 72 percent of Qualcomm’s international patents, 65 percent of Merck’s patents, 64 percent of GE’s patents and 41 percent of government patents. [Cited from][Source]
America has taken on a multitude of lifestyles and cultures since 1776. Everyone gets to do whatever they want, for better or worse, so there’s no burden placed on society when someone forges their own path and plenty of benefits if they succeed.
Japan has done the exact opposite of that for hundreds of years longer: Rigid career paths leave little room to experiment. For many Japanese business owners, the first failed business is the last one, as banks look at private failure rates in determining future loans. Higher-level management types who quit one job are specifically banned from seeking the same job at another company; new workers start at the bottom, every time.
It’s difficult for Japanese entrepreneurs to take risks, since failure is final.
The pro-immigration side says that diversifying Japan’s business practices and workplace culture could attract more foreign experts, while the anti-immigration side says that’s just too hard, and not worth the social cost: Importing foreign experts into Japan’s complicated culture is tricky, and many foreigners don’t want to deal with that atmosphere.
Notably, the business world is doing it anyway, and the number of foreign millionaires in Japan is rising. The highest-paid executive in Japan is named Carlos.
Monoculture is slowly cracking. And that’s pissing a lot of people off.
White Pig, Go Home!
This video was taken in Shibuya last year at a nationalist parade.
I haven’t run into anything like this. The clear, smiling English enunciation of the girl I met at the train station was the worst display of pure Japanese racism I’ve seen. It didn’t really scare me: It was funny. It was even sort of cute.
But when you see militant right-wingers emboldened by delusional certainty, such as Andy Breivik, the military marches singling out two white guys on the street, buses being run off the road and smoke bombs being thrown at embassies, it starts to get uncomfortable.
I’ve never felt unsafe in Japan. I’ve been treated like an infant, which is a less pernicious kind of racism; Japanese people assume their culture is densely complicated and crazy for foreigners (which is correct) and feel obligated to help you.
Granted, Japan’s small group of right-wing extremists are angry that I’m here. They want stricter immigration laws and the Emperor back in political power. They show off their anger by occasionally getting together in army uniforms for military drills in public parks. They drive a bus into Fukushima for no good reason, then end up getting satirized in movies like Battle Royale.
But the simple arguments of militant nationalists are an obscure subset of Japanese politics. For everyone else, the immigration issue is a tricky blend of cultural pride, cultural complexity and yes, cultural cohesion.
It’s a debate, not a war.
If Anders Breivik imagined something else, he was thinking of another country.
Next week I’ll talk about something fun. You can keep abreast of updates by following me @owls_mcgee on Twitter, or “liking” This Japanese Life on Facebook.
Really interesting article, I’ve seen these nationalists myself in Japan and have discussed the issue with co-workers (who think these guys are nutjobs). However, I don’t understand your point ‘Breivik was a new breed of dickhead, one that could only be forged in Europe’. Why only Europe?
The reason I say Breivik is a particularly European kind of dickhead isn’t a slight on Europe. It’s just that Europe is in the midst of a disruptive multicultural endeavor with the EU. In my time there, which was quite limited, there’s a strange mix of nationalism and pan-Europanism that has put the idea of “multiculturalism” on the radar of your run-of-the-mill dickheads.
In America I just don’t think it would occur to anyone to become an “antimulticulturalist,” they’d just be racist; Asia is too monocultural to fight for monoculturalism (it’s inherent). Breivik goes out of his way, many times, to say he “has Muslim friends” and his targets weren’t chosen by race, they were chosen for their embrace of diversity. I just think it’s unlikely that an American, Asian or African terrorist would choose his victims based on that specific criteria, but not too odd for an antsy Euro-Redneck terrified of EU consolidation, the Euro and waves of Muslim immigrants.
The rhetoric, and rhetorical terminology, is just very specific to Europe at this stage in history, I feel.
TLDR: An American terrorist blowing up The White House in the name of “monoculturalism” is about as likely as a British terrorist blowing up Parliament because he hates Mexicans.
Europe is having an increasing problem with its right wing, there is no denying that. However, there are a few issues with trying to argue that this is specific to such a diverse continent – about which generalisations are particularly hard to make. Firstly, Norway isn’t in the EU. Secondly, the ‘anti-multicultural’ feeling, while it does have some strong criticisms of closer European integration, isn’t primarily aimed at other Europeans. Rather, it is predominately aimed (since 9/11) at Muslims. Furthermore, this isn’t at all specific to Europe. Australia, for example, is currently in the throws of debate about multiculturalism and there have been some rather extreme views expressed there. This comparison is easy as Australia shares the same terminology as Europe in the debate. I would argue that there is ‘anti-multicultural’ feeling in America also, but it gets placed in the framework of patriotism. It would be hard to argue that some of those vigilantes catching immigrants on the Mexican border are not trying to defend what they believe to be American culture from an influx of Spanish-speaking Latinos. The Tea Party Movement also reeks of monoculturalism. Sarah Palin’s ‘One Nation Tour’ of the northeast is a great example of this.
Essentially, the EU isn’t the issue here and the terminology of the debate in Europe and Australia does not limit the issues being discussed to those places.
I agree completely. My statement was specifically about the terminology, and my answer was specifically about why that terminology is used in Europe vs the States – not why the ideology exists.
We’d have (we’ve had) the same guys, they just never use the word “antimulticulturalism” or describe their motives using that term because American culture already has a completely different linguistic framework for it.
Basically, I’m not saying “only Europe breeds dickheads,” I’m saying “Only Europe breeds dickheads who use words like antimulticulturalism.”
Europe and Australia, I’ve now learned.
Either way thanks for pointing out that I’m not being clear. I tweaked the original language to reflect more of what I’ve meant to say.
First off, of course these killings were unjust and there is zero excuse for such an attack…But to the debate of multiculturalism, why is it only right for European nations to have to accept immigrants and not other countries? If you look at Chinese, Japanese, etc. immigration laws, they are very strict and it is extremely hard for people of another ethnicity, let alone race, to naturalize. I agree that interaction between different cultures is essential for the world to progress, but it is not fair for one culture to have to succumb so much to multiculturalism that it has to give up its own. By doing that, in a sense, that country is giving up its contribution to multiculturalism since it’s culture will eventually disappear.
I’m not sure if that question was directed at me or rhetorical, but I’ve not put forth any opinion on European multiculturalism. What I can say is that, as an American, multiculturalism works for America. Many Japanese say it won’t work in Japan, and I’ve outlined their arguments and the arguments against.
The argument on European immigration is not one that I feel particularly qualified to make, for or against, outside of saying it is a particularly stupid excuse to slaughter schoolchildren.
No doubt it is stupid and there is no excuse to kill schoolchildren, or any innocent people, but that terrorist/horrific act does not invalidate some of his arguments…Multiculturalism has worked for America, but I believe a large part of this is that we (I’m American as well) really do not have a deep, rooted history or culture that extends many hundreds or thousands of years back such as European countries or Japan or really any “Old World” countries and, though it was mostly white men who founded this country, people of every race and ethnicity helped build it and America would not be what it is today without contributions from everyone (yes, Native Americans were here long before this country’s founding, and it is a shame that their culture has been virtually wiped out and their land was taken, but, to be quite blunt, I think we can agree that sheer numbers prevent them from regaining back this land-a sad, but honest asstatem)
statement). However, just because the Native American culture was wrongly taken over does not mean it is just for a European culture to be ousted as well. Yes, ethnic Europeans still dominate that continent’s population, however the population of outside groups is rising much more quickly than of the European population. A country/nation is defined by its people and culture, and for many European countries, this idea is being challenged, which does not set well with many people. If Japan/India/China,etc. are allowed to hang on to their traditions and keep a relatively homogenous population, it is only fair that European countries can do the same without being deemed racist.
Karma. Natives are often told to shut up and take it when they lodge legit complaints against mainstream society and the inherent stereotypes tossed out there, stereotypes often shared by other non-white groups. European action in the past doesn’t give them that privilege of dictating how things should be run (after all, European descendants are currently dictating how things should be run for Natives). So Euros should shut up and take it.
People should really stop comparing Europe and USA. It’s not the same. I am not supporting this mad man, but where there is smoke there is fire. Constantinople, Kosovo, Bosna etc were once Christian lands. Now they are Muslim. Who gives guaranty that 50-100 years from now things will stay the same in various EU countries? They won’t, it’s that simple. Whites have few kids, Arabs have plenty. Majority rules, it’s democracy. Very simple. I think it is very ignorant not to care about your culture, history and identity. Who ever tries to convince you otherwise is a liar.
Pingback: Terroristens endimensjonale kulturforståelse « 22/7 documentation project
‘anti-multicultural’ feeling, ……… is predominately aimed (since 9/11) at Muslims.” Not so. It’s aimed at all non-whites, particularly Africans, eg, Somalis and Nigerians. Having said that, most Europeans, given a choice, would pick Asian Muslims over Africans any time. Asians are usually productive members of society and have good family values. Ideally, of course, most Europeans would prefer to have none of them at all.
You make some very good points, but I disagree about Japanese culture being too intricate or difficult to teach. The biggest impediment to learning Japanese culture is the attitude that it is so. The truth is that the Japanese, having grown up in their culture, are largely unaware of how to present it. What is more, they operate from the idea that it is too hard for foreigners to understand, so they don’t bother to explain it. What is more, most Japanese can’t understand their own culture very well (classic example: ask them to explain rather than give an example of “wabi sabi”) and merely operate within it without truly knowing it. It is akin to being a native speaker of a language who speaks it without knowing the grammatical rules and therefore not being able to explain why sentences are structured as they are.
All cultures are complicated and sophisticated. Placing Japanese culture in a special category as hard to learn is simply a reflection of a lack of experience with it. It’s no easier to learn to navigate the cultural land mines in America than it is to learn them in Japan (which is not actually a monoculture, as the differences between those in Osaka and those in Tokyo illustrates). The difference is in the expectations of adherence. Only in Japan is the tolerance so low for deviation (especially when it comes to foreigners) from expectations that it is an issue. Japanese people hardly follow all cultural rules, but it is more readily tolerated when they go their own way.
I just want to state for the record that I agree with you, but I’m trying to outline mainstream Japan’s position on immigration when I say that they think the culture is too difficult for foreigners to get a handle on. It’s a common Japanese myth – why even the most well-meaning Japanese people will be surprised when I can order food in Japanese and eat it properly after being here for a year. The myth is that Japan is way too complicated for foreigners to grasp.
That said, I think there is a lot about Japan that would make many people not WANT to fit in 100 percent. That, I think, is a legitimate point.
Pingback: My Five Most Popular Posts of the Rabbit Year H.23 | This Japanese Life. | 生命を外面九天です
Pingback: Black in Japan
Pingback: On Selling “Latin Biorhythms” in Japan | This Japanese Life. | 生命を外面九天です
Better a xenophobic, nationalist idiot than a “tolerant” liberal idiot
Multiculturalism just doesn’t work. It’s not about who’s better or what race, it’s that putting different people together means infighting at some point.
No Asian country would take any significant amount of permanent foreign immigrants, that’s precisely why we have the longest continuous histories and will probably stay that way.
Longest continuous histories? What does this even mean? And who is we? I cannot think of a single Asian country whose history that has not been ‘interrupted’ by war or colonialism. Furthermore, if you were truly to pick countries with the longest continuous history you would have to look to Europe – Great Britain in particular (even though it would be such a futile exercise).
It begs belief that you can even take the time to write such drivel. Your point is essentially ‘better an idiot who hates people than an idiot who likes people’.
In addition to all this you cannot use history to predict future trends. Especially when your ‘facts’ are so flawed (Singapore, a city state based upon immigration, springs to mind).
One more point. You say that multiculturalism doesn’t work and leads to just more infighting. Do you think that infighting just wouldn’t exist? Look at the class and caste systems around the world. People throughout history have always attempted to differentiate each other. The class system, for instance, was a way of differentiating against people who looked the same. Multiculturalism can work – again, just look at Singapore.