IBARW 2: "But Japan is racist too!"
This is a post for Intl. Blog Against Racism Week.
My terms, definitions, and disclaimers
This is sparked by these comments made during the HP Daily Deviant Debate, but I am not specifically commenting on said debate.
Definition: The "But Japan is racist too!" fallacy is used in discussions of racism as a means to deflect attention from white privilege in the oppression of POC. It is a special corollary of the "But POC are racist too!" fallacy.
Example: Person A: "I'm still mad that the Haitian on Heroes has no name and little agency! It is in a long tradition in which black men on TV and in movies play sidekicks to the white heroes and get no agency."
Person B: "But look at Hiro and Japanese society! Japan is racist too!"
The Nanking Corollary: Person A: "First, you are redirecting the conversation, as we are not talking about racism in Japanese society. Second, even though non-Japanese people are discriminated against in Japan, being white in Japan still carries privilege that being Ainu, Korean, Filipino, black, Ryukyuan, and etc. does not. Furthermore, if you look at the global hierarchy of race, you will find that white privilege exists on nearly every level."
Person B: "You think non-white people can't be racist? What about the Rape of Nanking?"
Further exploration: Usage of the "But Japan is racist too!" fallacy is an automatic bonus square on White Liberal Bingo. Usage of the Nanking Corollary means you FAIL AT LIFE. Usage of either when your only contributions to discussions on racism are limited to "You are racist toward white people!" and "Why are you so angry? We should all live in peace" and when the only time you discuss racism of your own accord on your blog or in RL is when you personally feel offended by someone suggesting something is racist is also a FAIL AT LIFE.
Please note that talking about racism in Japan in discussions that originally focus on comfort women, WWII, immigration policy, the Tokugawa caste system, the occupation of Taiwan, the relocation of Korean people, or other such relevant topics does not count as a fallacy.
"But... Japan is racist... I don't get it...," someone says.
This is true. Japan is racist. On the other hand, using this argument during a discussion of white privilege is the equivalent of someone saying "She steals too!" when accused of theft themselves. That is to say, it is not the topic at hand, and furthermore, people are using it as a means to not talk about an uncomfortable topic like white privilege. Also, no one is stopping anyone from talking about how Japan is racist anywhere else, but somehow it just keeps popping up in discussions of white privilege.
Even more, I would add that focusing on racism directed toward white people in Japan while completely ignoring the existence of white privilege and not putting it into context is misrepresentation and turns the conversation back to whiteness. Racism in Japan is by and large directed at other POC, particularly those of Korean, Chinese, Filipino, Ainu and Ryukyuan descent, not to mention the burakumin, who are arguably not an ethnic minority.
Also, since someone decided to bring in the Rape of Nanking, Japanese colonialism happened in a very specific context. I am by no means saying that Japanese colonialism was ok; they forced a generation of people to learn a different language in Taiwan, and that is next to nothing compared to what they were doing in Korea. Nor am I saying that all discussions of Japanese colonialism must be placed within a Western context. But what I'm seeing is not the desire to discuss Japanese colonialism at great length, but the desire to discuss non-Western colonialism at great length. And if the latter is the case, then I do think context is necessary, because Japanese colonialism is an anomaly in the history of modern colonialism.
And now, massive disclaimers! I am glossing over and simplifying huge chunks of history here in an attempt to be somewhat concise. I am also trying to use "Chinese" and "Japanese" and such as adjectives, not nouns; I hated reading sentences like "The Chinese were anti-trade" in textbooks because it implies a homogeousness that does not exist (Seriously! Who? The government? The merchants? The bureaucrats? When? Qing Dynasty? Early Qing? Late Qing? Where? Guangzhou? Shanghai? Because I really don't think middle-class Chinese merchants in Guangzhou were anti-trade). Also, said homogeousness is usually only in reference to non-Western countries; Western countries unsurprisingly get lots of focus on individuals and factions and such. My knowledge of all this largely comes from my college major and my personal interest in colonialism and imperialism, particularly in Asia, particularly with regard to China and Japan. I regretfully don't know much at all about Korea and pretty much nothing at all about Southeast Asia. I'm also using "Western" and "the West" to refer to "Europe and the United States."
While the Japanese government had made several attempts to conquer Korea and China in the past, Japanese colonialism officially began in 1895 in the Meiji era (1868-1912) and ended in 1945 with Japan's defeat in WWII. The focus of the Meiji Restoration was on westernization and modernization, which was sparked by Commodore Perry's arrival in 1854 and the subsequent opening of Japan to international trade (by force). People in Japan were also taking note of what was happening to China, the former main power of the region.
For those unfamiliar with Chinese history, China had engaged in trade with the West for a while, but there was a huge trade deficit, as there was a great demand for Chinese porcelain, tea and silk. By and large, the Chinese government wanted silver and not that much else. All this refers roughly to the first half of the Qing Dynasty (c. 1644-1800). I sarcastically note that most representations of historical Chinese culture in the West are based on the Qing Dynasty, which while important, is also a fraction of the span of Chinese culture, and that those portrayals are actually based on the Manchu (the clothing, the queue, the round hats), and yes, I do realize that is probably because that is when the West had the greatest amount of exposure to China. I still dislike the resulting snapshot standing for the entire thing.
Anyway. As we all know, Britain eventually found the one non-silver trade item that the Chinese population did want: opium. To put in further perspective, this all could not have happened without imperialism, as British merchants first began purchasing opium for trade in India, and later gave the East India Company a monopoly over opium in India. Cue the first and second Opium Wars, in which the Chinese government was forced to cede more and more, including Hong Kong, the legalization of opium, trade rights, and the opening of several spheres of influence to Russia, Britain, Italy, France, the US, and Japan (later on).
ETA: See also the forcing of extraterritoriality (thanks Mely!), in which assorted foreign governments demanded that both China and Japan recognize that Westerners were not subject to Chinese or Japanese law and demanded jurisdiction in cases involving locals and foreigners. Unsurprisingly, this was hotly contested by the Chinese and Japanese governments and was often used by foreign powers to consolidate their own power and to a) prosecute locals who acted against them and b) allow their own people to get away with a ton of stuff (ha, yes, I am so scholarly in my terminology...).
What does this have to do with Japan? Japan was watching the entire time. China was by no means the center of the Asian world in the 19th century (or really at any time), but it had a good deal of wealth and political power, which meant people noticed it. And when Perry landed, it ended up being a wake-up call for Japan: modernize, because if you don't, look what happened to China. The unequal trade treaties that the United States and the United Kingdom made Japan sign probably looked frighteningly like the unequal trade treaties that were being forced on China just ten years earlier. I am sure people in Japan, particularly in the Japanese government, were keenly aware that the only reason something like Perry landing and forcibly opening trade hadn't happened earlier was because the West had been distracted by China.
And so, in order to take a place in the new world order, the Japanese government decided to embark on the course of imperialism, modeling itself after Europe and the US. Just to be clear, this is not a hand-wavy way of saying "they modernized the country." The Japanese government sent scholars and government officials to several European countries and to the US in order to look at things like the militaries, school systems, technology, government and etc., they brought in American and European consultants in those areas, and much of the rhetoric around the late 1800s was about leaving Asia and embracing the West. This was a very deliberate modeling, and it was specifically modeled after the West.
None of this, by the way, excuses Japanese imperialism or lessens its impact; the government decided on imperialism as a course of action, and it is fully responsible for that decision.
What I mean to point out, though, is that by bringing up Japanese imperialism in the context of an argument about white privilege, people are also indirectly implicating the white world, whether they realize it or not. Again: if the discussion is focusing on Japanese imperialism and its effects on Asia, I do think bringing in the history of Western imperialism can be used as a means to redirect blame from Japan, which is inaccurate and insulting to those who suffered under Japanese rule. I personally think the Japanese government's refusal to apologize to Korea and its attempts to whitewash history in school textbooks is racist and absolutely appalling, and while I'm aware that Japanese rule over Taiwan was relatively kinder than Japanese rule over Korea, they still occupied my country for fifty years.
And I'm sure China would have colonized much more extensively had the West not come in; the Qing Dynasty had already colonized people in the west and the north. But. The West did, and China didn't. And all this is my very long-winded way of saying, "Don't bring Japan into discussions of white privilege unless you're willing to deal with all this history as well. Because these are the things that shaped my world, and if you didn't know these things, think about why that is when the winners write history."*
* Seriously. I don't understand Chinese well enough for complex discussions, and I only took two years of Chinese history in Taiwan (in Chinese), as opposed to multiple years of world geography and history and US geography and history in my bilingual school. But the rage about the Opium Wars and the Japanese occupation? That's from Chinese history, where in the textbooks, they still call the treaties of Nanjing and Tientsin "the Unfair Treaties" (bu ping dun tiao yue) and people still hate talking about the Opium Wars. I still remember memorizing the names of the eight countries that held spheres of influence in China and memorizing the names and conditions of treaty after treaty after treaty, all at gunpoint, all stripping things away.
As a secondary footnote, angry as I am about these aspects of Chinese history, I'm also aware that China got off relatively easily when compared to other places colonized by the West. China was never the official colony or colonies of anyone (though not for lack of trying) and didn't end up being parcelled out (though again, not for lack of trying), and the colonizers left China hurt, but not as devastated as other places.
My terms, definitions, and disclaimers
This is sparked by these comments made during the HP Daily Deviant Debate, but I am not specifically commenting on said debate.
Definition: The "But Japan is racist too!" fallacy is used in discussions of racism as a means to deflect attention from white privilege in the oppression of POC. It is a special corollary of the "But POC are racist too!" fallacy.
Example: Person A: "I'm still mad that the Haitian on Heroes has no name and little agency! It is in a long tradition in which black men on TV and in movies play sidekicks to the white heroes and get no agency."
Person B: "But look at Hiro and Japanese society! Japan is racist too!"
The Nanking Corollary: Person A: "First, you are redirecting the conversation, as we are not talking about racism in Japanese society. Second, even though non-Japanese people are discriminated against in Japan, being white in Japan still carries privilege that being Ainu, Korean, Filipino, black, Ryukyuan, and etc. does not. Furthermore, if you look at the global hierarchy of race, you will find that white privilege exists on nearly every level."
Person B: "You think non-white people can't be racist? What about the Rape of Nanking?"
Further exploration: Usage of the "But Japan is racist too!" fallacy is an automatic bonus square on White Liberal Bingo. Usage of the Nanking Corollary means you FAIL AT LIFE. Usage of either when your only contributions to discussions on racism are limited to "You are racist toward white people!" and "Why are you so angry? We should all live in peace" and when the only time you discuss racism of your own accord on your blog or in RL is when you personally feel offended by someone suggesting something is racist is also a FAIL AT LIFE.
Please note that talking about racism in Japan in discussions that originally focus on comfort women, WWII, immigration policy, the Tokugawa caste system, the occupation of Taiwan, the relocation of Korean people, or other such relevant topics does not count as a fallacy.
"But... Japan is racist... I don't get it...," someone says.
This is true. Japan is racist. On the other hand, using this argument during a discussion of white privilege is the equivalent of someone saying "She steals too!" when accused of theft themselves. That is to say, it is not the topic at hand, and furthermore, people are using it as a means to not talk about an uncomfortable topic like white privilege. Also, no one is stopping anyone from talking about how Japan is racist anywhere else, but somehow it just keeps popping up in discussions of white privilege.
Even more, I would add that focusing on racism directed toward white people in Japan while completely ignoring the existence of white privilege and not putting it into context is misrepresentation and turns the conversation back to whiteness. Racism in Japan is by and large directed at other POC, particularly those of Korean, Chinese, Filipino, Ainu and Ryukyuan descent, not to mention the burakumin, who are arguably not an ethnic minority.
Also, since someone decided to bring in the Rape of Nanking, Japanese colonialism happened in a very specific context. I am by no means saying that Japanese colonialism was ok; they forced a generation of people to learn a different language in Taiwan, and that is next to nothing compared to what they were doing in Korea. Nor am I saying that all discussions of Japanese colonialism must be placed within a Western context. But what I'm seeing is not the desire to discuss Japanese colonialism at great length, but the desire to discuss non-Western colonialism at great length. And if the latter is the case, then I do think context is necessary, because Japanese colonialism is an anomaly in the history of modern colonialism.
And now, massive disclaimers! I am glossing over and simplifying huge chunks of history here in an attempt to be somewhat concise. I am also trying to use "Chinese" and "Japanese" and such as adjectives, not nouns; I hated reading sentences like "The Chinese were anti-trade" in textbooks because it implies a homogeousness that does not exist (Seriously! Who? The government? The merchants? The bureaucrats? When? Qing Dynasty? Early Qing? Late Qing? Where? Guangzhou? Shanghai? Because I really don't think middle-class Chinese merchants in Guangzhou were anti-trade). Also, said homogeousness is usually only in reference to non-Western countries; Western countries unsurprisingly get lots of focus on individuals and factions and such. My knowledge of all this largely comes from my college major and my personal interest in colonialism and imperialism, particularly in Asia, particularly with regard to China and Japan. I regretfully don't know much at all about Korea and pretty much nothing at all about Southeast Asia. I'm also using "Western" and "the West" to refer to "Europe and the United States."
While the Japanese government had made several attempts to conquer Korea and China in the past, Japanese colonialism officially began in 1895 in the Meiji era (1868-1912) and ended in 1945 with Japan's defeat in WWII. The focus of the Meiji Restoration was on westernization and modernization, which was sparked by Commodore Perry's arrival in 1854 and the subsequent opening of Japan to international trade (by force). People in Japan were also taking note of what was happening to China, the former main power of the region.
For those unfamiliar with Chinese history, China had engaged in trade with the West for a while, but there was a huge trade deficit, as there was a great demand for Chinese porcelain, tea and silk. By and large, the Chinese government wanted silver and not that much else. All this refers roughly to the first half of the Qing Dynasty (c. 1644-1800). I sarcastically note that most representations of historical Chinese culture in the West are based on the Qing Dynasty, which while important, is also a fraction of the span of Chinese culture, and that those portrayals are actually based on the Manchu (the clothing, the queue, the round hats), and yes, I do realize that is probably because that is when the West had the greatest amount of exposure to China. I still dislike the resulting snapshot standing for the entire thing.
Anyway. As we all know, Britain eventually found the one non-silver trade item that the Chinese population did want: opium. To put in further perspective, this all could not have happened without imperialism, as British merchants first began purchasing opium for trade in India, and later gave the East India Company a monopoly over opium in India. Cue the first and second Opium Wars, in which the Chinese government was forced to cede more and more, including Hong Kong, the legalization of opium, trade rights, and the opening of several spheres of influence to Russia, Britain, Italy, France, the US, and Japan (later on).
ETA: See also the forcing of extraterritoriality (thanks Mely!), in which assorted foreign governments demanded that both China and Japan recognize that Westerners were not subject to Chinese or Japanese law and demanded jurisdiction in cases involving locals and foreigners. Unsurprisingly, this was hotly contested by the Chinese and Japanese governments and was often used by foreign powers to consolidate their own power and to a) prosecute locals who acted against them and b) allow their own people to get away with a ton of stuff (ha, yes, I am so scholarly in my terminology...).
What does this have to do with Japan? Japan was watching the entire time. China was by no means the center of the Asian world in the 19th century (or really at any time), but it had a good deal of wealth and political power, which meant people noticed it. And when Perry landed, it ended up being a wake-up call for Japan: modernize, because if you don't, look what happened to China. The unequal trade treaties that the United States and the United Kingdom made Japan sign probably looked frighteningly like the unequal trade treaties that were being forced on China just ten years earlier. I am sure people in Japan, particularly in the Japanese government, were keenly aware that the only reason something like Perry landing and forcibly opening trade hadn't happened earlier was because the West had been distracted by China.
And so, in order to take a place in the new world order, the Japanese government decided to embark on the course of imperialism, modeling itself after Europe and the US. Just to be clear, this is not a hand-wavy way of saying "they modernized the country." The Japanese government sent scholars and government officials to several European countries and to the US in order to look at things like the militaries, school systems, technology, government and etc., they brought in American and European consultants in those areas, and much of the rhetoric around the late 1800s was about leaving Asia and embracing the West. This was a very deliberate modeling, and it was specifically modeled after the West.
None of this, by the way, excuses Japanese imperialism or lessens its impact; the government decided on imperialism as a course of action, and it is fully responsible for that decision.
What I mean to point out, though, is that by bringing up Japanese imperialism in the context of an argument about white privilege, people are also indirectly implicating the white world, whether they realize it or not. Again: if the discussion is focusing on Japanese imperialism and its effects on Asia, I do think bringing in the history of Western imperialism can be used as a means to redirect blame from Japan, which is inaccurate and insulting to those who suffered under Japanese rule. I personally think the Japanese government's refusal to apologize to Korea and its attempts to whitewash history in school textbooks is racist and absolutely appalling, and while I'm aware that Japanese rule over Taiwan was relatively kinder than Japanese rule over Korea, they still occupied my country for fifty years.
And I'm sure China would have colonized much more extensively had the West not come in; the Qing Dynasty had already colonized people in the west and the north. But. The West did, and China didn't. And all this is my very long-winded way of saying, "Don't bring Japan into discussions of white privilege unless you're willing to deal with all this history as well. Because these are the things that shaped my world, and if you didn't know these things, think about why that is when the winners write history."*
* Seriously. I don't understand Chinese well enough for complex discussions, and I only took two years of Chinese history in Taiwan (in Chinese), as opposed to multiple years of world geography and history and US geography and history in my bilingual school. But the rage about the Opium Wars and the Japanese occupation? That's from Chinese history, where in the textbooks, they still call the treaties of Nanjing and Tientsin "the Unfair Treaties" (bu ping dun tiao yue) and people still hate talking about the Opium Wars. I still remember memorizing the names of the eight countries that held spheres of influence in China and memorizing the names and conditions of treaty after treaty after treaty, all at gunpoint, all stripping things away.
As a secondary footnote, angry as I am about these aspects of Chinese history, I'm also aware that China got off relatively easily when compared to other places colonized by the West. China was never the official colony or colonies of anyone (though not for lack of trying) and didn't end up being parcelled out (though again, not for lack of trying), and the colonizers left China hurt, but not as devastated as other places.