ON RACISM IN JAPAN:
WHY ONE MAY BE HOPEFUL FOR THE FUTURE
By Arudou Debito, Associate Professor, Hokkaido Information University.
Paper given at Meiji Gakuin University Symposium "International Studies of Our New Era: Immigrants, Refugees, and Women" on Sunday, July 17, 2005
ABSTRACT: This paper discusses the phenomenon of racism in Japan, and how Japan's version is subtler than those found in other societies. This subtlety has both positive and negative consequences: Negatively, it deprives the issue of the power of social shock, alleviating pressure to eliminate racism through clear and expedite legislation. Positively, because the Japanese variant is grounded less in an inexorable hatred per se, it will be comparatively easier to persuade people of racism's evils, particularly since Japanese paradigms conflating race and nationality increasingly affect multinational and genetically-diverse Japanese citizens. Nevertheless, it will take some time to convince the government that anti-discrimination laws are necessary, and the government must counteract a fear and hatred of foreigners currently being generated by domestic law enforcement. After activists lay the groundwork, by stressing the humanity of foreigners and the benefits of immigrants to an aging Japanese society, it is entirely conceivable that Japan will create said policy to protect all of its residents, regardless of nationality and appearance, against racial discrimination.
"As a world power in an era of globalization, Japan has to expand to the outside world. But its society is still closed, spiritually and intellectually centered."
--Doudou Diene of Senegal, special rapporteur of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, who toured Japan July 3 to 12, 2005, assessing the situation of minorities and foreigners in Japanese society. This is the first time a UN envoy has ever made an on-site survey of Japan. (Kyodo News, July 1, 2005)
By "racism", I mean discrimination by race, as defined in the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), effected by Japan in 1996: "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."
Racism, it should be stated right away, is ubiquitous, and any discussion of it should be with the understanding that no country or people is innocent of it, or immune to similar critique or criticism regarding its history and expression of racist tendencies. Japan is not to be held to any different standard of observation or scrutiny from its fellow international societies.
That understood, racism in Japan is more subtle than its overseas variants. It lacks the outright hatred one sees in American cross-burnings and lynchings, pogroms against Jews and Tutsis, and highly-codified classifications and repressions of South African Apartheid, to give but a few examples. Thus one of the common arguments for overlooking Japan's racism has been, "it is worse elsewhere in the world". Nevertheless, Japanese racism is no less effective in separating people into categories based solely upon their genetic background. It is, essentially, a binary system: Either you are Japanese, or you are not. Zero or one, zero or Ichi-ro.
The terms of social categorization are evident in Japan's public discourse. Although the word gaikokujin (extranational) is generally used with the semantics of "foreigner" in English, people are also separated into a "foreign" category by appearance alone (meaning that many types of Asians, on sight, are not considered gaikokujin, as we shall see below). Consequently, appearance (which soon becomes a racial construct) is conflated with nationality (a legal construct), with Japanese racist tendencies grouping anyone who does not "look Japanese" into one group--gaijin (along with the archaic ijin, with equivalent semantics). There are allowances for skin color: "Whites" become hakujin, Amerika-jin, or Eigo-jin ("English-language person"), "Blacks" are rendered as kokujin, kuronbo ("blackie"), and the older but still used dojin ("dirt person", although this is not exclusively used for black people—rather for “backward people”)). Then comes a salad of categories and epithets for people who do not have "pure" Japanese looks: haafu, kuo-ta- (quarter), plus the older konketsuji (mixed-blood child) and ainoko (literally "alloyed child", but historically used for bastard children from liaisons between Japanese and US soldiers). Nationality, in terms of being a legal status, rarely comes into the language when socially pigeonholing "foreign-looking people", even if they happen to have Japanese citizenship.
However, people of Chinese and Korean descent are treated with greater sophistication in public discourse, their nationality derived through evidencing shapes of eyes and faces. As with all societies dealing with their neighbors, Japan assigns them vernacular nicknames: shina-jin ("Sinese") and the historical toujin for Chinese, chon usually for Koreans but sometimes for both. A prewar word left for dead until revived by Tokyo Governor Ishihara in his speeches was sangoku-jin ("Third-Country Person"), historically used to separate "genuine" Japanese from the colonial-era "Japanese citizens of empire" (Chinese, Formosans, Koreans, even Okinawans--cf. Dower p. 122)). What confuses many overseas observers of the debate is defining "Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese" as separate "races"--as opposed to "ethnicities" in Western rubric. This is in part because the Japanese language tends to conflate "ethnicity" (minzokusei) with "race" (which would be rendered jinshu if translated under English semantics)--most obviously visible in yamato minzoku for "the Japanese race". This rubric is not only Japan's; the debate between all three parties also conflates the terms, often stressing "blood and soil" arguments when drawing societal comparisons and contrasts.
However, the terms of debate are shifting under current social trends in Japan. With record numbers of registered foreigners in Japan (and a sizable number of illegal entrants and overstayers), police and media reports on foreign crime have added diversity to criminology and racial profiling: burajirujin kei (for South Americans), tounan ajia-jin-fuu, (for South-East Asians), chuutou-kei (for Middle-Easterners), ajia-kei (for Asians in general), chuu-goku kei (for Asians speaking in tonal accents), indo-kei (for Subcontinental Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and Sri Lankans), and the occasional allowance for firipin-kei when the context of the announcement involves the water trades. Nevertheless, the general default term used in police reports is still binary--when the suspect is of uncertain ethnic origin but clearly "not Japanese", the terminology reverts back to the default gaikokujin-fuu (foreign-looking).
However, racism in Japan is not confined to public discourse. It is also enshrined in Japan's laws. Refer to my handout in English and Japanese entitled "Treatment of Japan's International Residents: Problems and Solutions for a 21st-Century Japan" (also available as a link below). In section two, "Legal Barriers towards Japan's International Residents", four clear systems are mentioned which exclude foreigners--not simply in the practices found worldwide of denying them the right to vote or run for public office--but rather in ways unusual for a developed nation:
1) Refusal to register foreign residents legally-married to Japanese as a "spouse" on Family Registries (koseki); 2) refusal to register foreign residents specifically as "residents" (juumin) on Residency Certificates (juuminhyou), meaning that one technically has to be citizen (kokumin) to be a resident; 3) refusal to allow people born in Japan to become Japanese citizens automatically (creating a postwar subculture by now at least four generations strong of "native-born foreigners"--comprising at least a third of the total of all registered foreigners in Japan); and 4) arbitrary barriers against naturalization into Japan, which makes it difficult for the immigrant to graduate out of foreigner status. In sum, non-Japanese residents of Japan face an unenviable system where they are rendered invisible to the local government registrar, but not the taxman, and face substantial difficulty remedying that.
Another problem is there is no law against racial discrimination in Japan. This has had clear effects upon which your author may speak as a primary source: "Japanese Only" signs are appearing outside businesses nationwide in Japan, excluding all customers who do not "look Japanese". The Internet "Rogues' Gallery of Exclusionary Businesses in Japan" website contains photos and case studies of no fewer than fifteen cities where signposted discrimination occurs, or has occurred, at public bathhouses, bars, discos, restaurants, barber shops, pachinko parlors, fashion boutiques, and regular stores. Most attempts to get these signs down and policies withdrawn have been unsuccessful, due to the fact that 1) these owners state, if not believe, their policies are essential to their survival, and 2) the authorities say they cannot stop it, since racial discrimination in Japan is not an illegal activity.
The Ana Bortz Case (1998-99) and the Otaru Onsens Case (2001-05) demonstrated that foreigners have legal recourse when denied service, as plaintiffs won their court cases against an exclusionary jewelry shop and public bathing facility respectively. However, in the latter case, which went all the way up to the Supreme Court for rejection, courts ruled that local governments may not be held liable for not taking effective measures against racial discrimination occurring in their jurisdiction. The same essence was found in court decisions regarding Prefectural University of Kumamoto Case (2000-2004) where a government-sponsored prefectural university was exonerated of responsibility for systematically hiring foreign and Japanese educators on unequal terms. The conclusion to be drawn here is that one may successfully sue private-sector businesses for damages one by one, but holding the government accountable for not enforcing the CERD is not something the Japanese judiciary will see as legally tenable, citing problems with the separation of powers.
Will things get better? Surface arguments say no. Attempts at getting the vote for Special Permanent Residents (the "Zainichi" generational foreigners mentioned above) keep getting stalemated by questions of loyalty to overseas powers, such as North Korea. Some jobs in the Japanese bureaucracy, such as firefighting and food preparation, remain reserved for citizens only, as are many jobs entailing promotion in the civil service (Chong Hyang Gyun Supreme Court defeat 2005). Clearly until 1997, Japanese National and Public Universities uniformly cited the "Nationality Clause" (kokuseki joukou) as grounds for denying tenured positions to non-Japanese full-time faculty; it still remains common practice in Japanese universities to deny tenure to foreigners (Blacklist of Japanese Universities, 1999-2004). The current debate in the Japanese government on the proposed "Protection of Human Rights" bill (jinken yougo houan) is bogged down in debate on whether or not to allow foreigners to be human-rights monitors with policing powers within the proposed redress system (the LDP again wants the Nationality Clause to apply).
As for establishing a law specifically protecting people against racial discrimination, the Japanese Government has argued to the United Nations that legislation is unnecessary, as Japan's judiciary already offers sufficient redress. (Japan CERD Report 2001 5(1)): "We do not recognize that the present situation of Japan is one in which discriminative acts cannot be effectively restrained by the existing legal system and in which explicit racial discriminative acts, which cannot be restrained by measures other than legislation, are conducted. Therefore, penalization of these acts is not considered necessary." Other arguments made by the government were that laws against racial discrimination, specifically hate crimes and expression, would undesirably abridge freedom of speech.
This disinclination is also reflected in the attitudes of Japan's legislators at all levels of government. When questioned by activists on the necessity of legislation (Otaru, Monbetsu, Wakkanai, and Sapporo City Assemblypeople 1999-2004, Hokkaido Prefectural Assemblypeople 2000-2003, and at least three Dietmembers (Takemura Yasuko 2000, Hatoyama Yukio 2001, Tsurunen Marutei 2002)), all wound up stressing in one form or another that caution and further deliberation is necessary, or it is simply too early for legislation. Submitted draft anti-discrimination chinjou petitions to these local authorities above have resulted in burial in committee, with eventual rejection through attrition. There has been no action on a "Basic Rights for Foreign Residents" bill (gaikokujin juumin kihon houan) seigan sponsored petition, drafted by activists in the domestic religious community (Gaikiren), and submitted to both houses of the Diet in March 2003.
Likewise, anti-terrorism action plans (such as the "Action Plan for Pre-empting of Terrorism" (tero no mizen boshi ni kansuru kodo keikaku), approved by the Koizumi Cabinet in December 2004 and facing implementation in 2006 and 2007, has proposals specifically targeting foreigners--including reinstituting fingerprinting for foreign entrants, screening miniscule of amounts of money transfers into foreigner accounts, and revising laws to require hotels to photocopy passports of foreign "lodgers" (the revision says "foreign tourists"; in practice it is being applied to all foreigners, including residents).
In sum, it does not seem likely in the near future, in this era of fear of foreign terrorists worldwide, that Japan will behave any less cautiously towards its gaijin than any other country, and why the time may not yet be ripe for Japan to pass any laws protecting people against racial discrimination.
The bright side to the debate is the fact that racial discrimination is not as insurmountable as it may seem. The author believes it is precisely because Japanese racism is not as much motivated by hatred, as it often is overseas.
Hatred, as may be seen in the smoldering conflicts that continue for generations in societies with racial tensions, is a hard habit to break. Hatred is often a visceral, inexorable emotion, not swayed by appeals to logic or reason. Moreover, the vicious circle of hatred--the vendetta--means that violence begets hatred, and vice versa; one need not dig too deeply into historical example before being convinced. However, in Japan, one of the reasons why racism is so hard to grasp and deal with is because people are rarely being killed by it--let alone being clearly deprived of life, liberty, and property. Apart from the Herculano Case (), where a Brazilian youth was killed by a Japanese gang in Aichi Prefecture in October 1997 (not to mention of course the violence against foreigners as sexual slaves under the now-abolished Entertainer Visas), it is difficult to find specific examples of racially-motivated violence against foreigners.
This is not to say that hatred towards foreigners in Japan does not exist, of course. However, Japanese racism pales in comparison with more egregious examples overseas (contributing to the attitude in Japan that racial discrimination is generally an overseas phenomenon), reducing the sense of urgency for public policy action. In contrast, consider the Okegawa Case (October 1999, see
). It took a premeditated murder of a college student by a stalker, coupled with a police cover-up of their overlooking all warning signs brought to their attention, before sufficient social shock was generated for public policy action. Legislation was then clear and expedite: An anti-stalking law (suto-ka- kisei hou) was passed by the Diet a mere five months after the murder, formally criminalizing the act in November 2000. In other words, a social shock is necessary to pass a law of this magnitude. Fortunately--and unfortunately--Japanese racism, due to its subtlety, is simply not shocking or murderous enough to outlaw.
Japanese racism also involves tenets so ingrained as to become self-evident in the debate, for the roots of separation and categorization of people in Japan is endemic to a Japanese sense of identity. What is "a Japanese"? I have surveyed hundreds of people on this issue both in regular conversation and in my university lectures, and it generally boils down to relatively simple qualifications: 1) Physical appearance, 2) Acculturation and Japanese Language Ability, 3) Japanese Blood, 4) Citizenship.
Physical appearance, as discussed above, is fairly straightforward, given the natural human talent for recognizing patterns in faces after years of experience and socialization. However, how one expressly "looks Japanese" is something not specifically quantifiable and codifiable (aside from the black hair/brown eyes generalization). Yet it is still generally accepted as a reasonable qualification within any discussion of national identity. It is also something that can rarely be changed in a person from birth, and will thus naturally entangle elements of race and racism.
Acculturalization and Japanese Language Ability, however, is a not racially-based paradigm, as anyone can under the right circumstances learn a language (and the media has proven repeatedly for decades that many people who do not "look Japanese" can speak it perfectly well). However, the oft-held beliefs that a) Japanese is a difficult language for any not born here and imbued with "Japaneseness", and that b) foreign languages must be difficult to learn, given everyone's rough experience with learning English, will make many people in Japan unable to accept language ability in itself as anything more than a minor qualifier for "Japaneseness", one made after taking into account other factors.
Japanese Blood is one of those factors. Those who have it tend to be naturally expected to be good at Japanese and familiar with Japanese tenets, while those who do not are generally politely excused from qualification. What is making the debate interesting these days is the large, and rising, numbers of children in international marriages who have Japanese nationality (by having one Japanese parent), have Japanese language ability (as natives), yet do not "look Japanese". People are often hesitant on first impression to call a Japanese child with darker skin and overseas features a nihonjin (Japanese). Instead, the tendency is to resort to words such as, nikkei (Japanese lineage), haafu (half-breed), daburu (double) etc.--all qualifiers and to some degree disqualifiers. However, once the observer acknowledges the person's familiarity with Japan and the Japanese language through extended contact, there is usually little more thought devoted to finding differences and divining cultural lessons in every encounter. Note that a raw hatred of the physical characteristics would not permit this degree of flexibility.
Finally, Japanese Citizenship makes the debate even more sophisticated. According to the Ministry of Justice, around 20,000 people naturalize into Japan every year. Most are ethnic Koreans, but there is still the occasional person who would normally be classified as a gaijin (including the author). Given the rigorousness and arbitrariness of the tests involved to qualify for citizenship (including rejection for parking tickets; Japan Times April 21, 2001), and the lack of appeal mechanisms for rejection, anyone who passes the test may certainly lay claim to being unquestionably "Japanese". However, this legal status changes none of the above qualifiers, which means any discussion of Japan's "internationalization" must take into account the racial diversity which is slowly emerging in current Japanese society.
Why the author remains hopeful that Japan will become more tolerant, both societally and legally, is precisely the fact that so many "people of differences" are undermining the postwar paradigms of "Japaneseness". After thorough discussion and debate in my university classes, almost all students come to realize that the only way one can determine "Japaneseness" is through legal status. All other qualifiers create unacceptable dilemmas for them: Judging by Physical Appearance would mean that, for example famous tarento TV personality Miyazawa Rie (who has a foreign father) would be "Japanese", yet similar tarento Umemiya Anna (who has a foreign mother) would be gaijin--just because the latter looks more like her foreign-born parent. The same dichotomy would naturally apply to their fully-acculturalized haafu classmates, who are becoming increasingly visible in Japan's schools. Acculturalization and language ability would mean that, for example, tarento Dave Spector, given that his abilities surpass most native speakers, would be indisputably Japanese, while any number of kikoku shijo (children returnees from overseas educational systems) classmates, by mere dint of spending extensive time abroad, would be disqualified and excluded. Japanese Blood would mean that famous people such as Beat Takeshi (aka movie director Kitano Takeshi), tarento Wada Akiko, enka singer Misora Hibari, and baseball superstar Oh Sadaharu would no longer be "Japanese" due to their pure-blood Korean and Chinese ties.
When all else falls away, people I have surveyed indicate that only Japanese citizenship remains the fairest arbiter of qualification--since it involves personal choice to be Japanese or not, not a status determined from birth for life. While allowing that the person conducting the survey of "Japaneseness" is the teacher or friend of those surveyed, with an apparent vested interest in the outcome, respondents demonstrated an overwhelming disavowal of racially-based qualifiers for "Japaneseness"--especially after awareness raising (the survey is conducted twice--once measuring initial feelings, once again after demonstrating how several of their favorite tarento do not fit their paradigms of "pure-blooded" Japanese). This overwhelming disavowal (usually around 95% of respondents ultimately eschew racial paradigms) and change in opinion after debate would show statistical significance even after a regression analysis. This is hopeful for the future.
The more Japanese society has contact with "foreign Japanese", not to mention contact with the growing numbers of foreigners in Japan, the more likely people are going to see them as individuals, as neighbors, rather than as mere statistics and social phenomena. Again, precisely due to the relative lack of hatred behind Japanese racism, and the fact that all the paradigms that support it are being chipped away at by Japan's increasing genetic diversity, it is becoming more likely that these racially-based paradigms will quietly be shifted away as obsolete thinking of a bygone era. This has happened before in Japan. To give but two examples: the obsolescence of the derogatory word "Christmas Cake" (referring to unmarried women over 25 years of age) due to the lowering birth and marriage rate; or the decrease in the stigma attached to changing jobs in Japan, thanks to the slow undermining of the system of lifetime employment in Japan.
There is also a perceptible rise of civil society in Japan, with more NGOs emerging (IMADR, Ijuuren, Gaikiren, Mindan, Mintouren, Zenrouren, NUGW, Tokyo Alien Eyes, Welcome House, NIBRA, The Community, United for a Multicultural Japan, to name but a few) to defend the rights of foreign residents, taking up issues affecting the public discourse on multiculturalism, even filling the gaps in government services in places with high foreign immigrant populations (Aichi, Gifu, and Shizuoka Prefectures). Activists will increase the number of proponents for anti-discrimination laws. However, as is commonly argued, even if laws are passed, it will not change the mindsets of individuals stuck in racist ruts. While I do not agree with this argument (having grown up in the United States under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, watching awareness and empowerment of the African-American community and the delegitimization of racist debate), I will agree with this: If support for anti-discrimination laws is truly to take root, the Japanese government must also encourage societal tolerance of racially-based differences through official pronouncements:
1) The Japanese government must stress that Japan is already an international society, and provide the statistics to prove it. To this day, the Census (kokusei chousa) does not survey citizens for ethnicity, which means that international Japanese children (which are not counted as "registered foreigners" because, naturally, they are not foreigners) remain invisible. The current situation provides an inadequate and inaccurate representation of Japan's social situation, and how the lack of anti-discrimination laws will affect Japanese citizens as well.
2) The Japanese government must indicate that "Japaneseness" is a legal status, nothing more, and that racial paradigms for categorizing people will also affect Japanese people too--particularly children. This will provide that necessary degree of social shock and impetus--even for many older conservatives, who, since there are 40,000 international marriages per year in Japan, will want the best for the young ones, particularly if they have international grandchildren.
3) The Japanese government must stress that foreigners are also residents of Japan, and as taxpayers are supporting Japan's aging society and welfare systems. This inevitable trend and the need for immigration to Japan has already been made clear in reports from the United Nations (2001) and the Prime Minister's Cabinet (January 8, 2000, see www.debito.org/A.html). In other words, foreigners are also immigrants, not just temporary guests, and are a social boon, not a bane. The National Police Agency has been fudging foreign crime statistics in order to target foreigners for budgetary reasons (Arudou, Japanese Only, p. 200-209), which is generating fear and hatred, and even pseudoscientific racism (including one example of "genetic racial profiling" crime research, under the NPA's clearly erroneous belief that one can genetically tell foreigners and Japanese apart--Japan Times January 13, 2004).
Once these foundations are laid, we can turn to the larger ideas (see the last page of your handout "Treatment of Japan's International Residents", under the section entitled "Modest Proposals"), such as dual nationality, universal suffrage for Special Permanent Residents (since they would be citizens already in any other developed country), equal registration procedures regardless of nationality, and a law preventing and punishing racial discrimination.
Is this wishful thinking? Speaking as an activist as well as a scholar of social trends, your author does not think so. Situations have improved after entreaty. I have seen businesses change their minds, after consultation and awareness raising, and taken their "Japanese Only" signs down. I have witnessed the same degree of outrage in Japanese over things like Mandom Gatsby advertising campaigns juxtaposing Rastafarians with chimpanzees (see Community Mandom Project
). Information on a social movement against Little Black Sambo's republication in Japan is a work in progress (www.debito.org/chibikurosanbo.html), and we will see where the debate winds up.
Therefore, as stubborn as many businesses and people are in enforcing racist practices, many more are open to entreaty and persuasion. This is why, as more people such as your author remain active in presenting their viewpoints, more Japanese will be able to see foreigners and people who look foreign as people, as neighbors, and as contributors to Japanese society. It is crucial to lay the groundwork through entreaty and persistence for those ideas to take root. Normal social trends are fostering that, and next year your author will be lobbying Japanese legislators with these ideas in order to soften them up to the inevitable social change which is Japan's internationalization and multiculturalization.
The United Nations would agree:
DISCRIMINATION IN JAPAN "DEEP", U.N. REP SAYS AFTER NINE DAY-VISIT
Kyodo News, Monday, July 11, 2005 (excerpt)
TOKYO--Discrimination in Japan is "deep and profound," with government leaders lacking recognition of the depth of the problem and the public having a "strong xenophobic drive," a U.N. special rapporteur said Monday in wrapping up a nine-day visit in Japan.
Doudou Diene of Senegal, appointed by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, called for stronger political will at the highest level to combat the issue, for Japan to enact a national law condemning racism as is obligatory under international conventions, and to improve its public education about minorities in the country.
"It will be a long-term task to change people's mentality and it must be done through education," said Diene, special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance…
"Japan has no comprehensive national law against discrimination," Diene said at a news conference…
Diene said he had requested a meeting with Tokyo Gov Shintaro Ishihara, known for his nationalistic views and controversial remarks against foreigners, but was denied an appointment…
Diene said he shared his preliminary findings with the Japanese government Monday morning and will wait for Japan's response before completing a final report to be submitted to the Commission on Human Rights next March.
He will also present a summary of his findings in an interim report to the U.N. General Assembly this autumn…. (Kyodo News)
Intolerance can be battled in many ways, and although it might help to have an online MBA, it is really not necessary. To overcome feelings of intolerance one must recognize and accept that other people and cultures are different. Many fear that which is different, in effect causing violence and unfair treatment to others. Education is key in these situations and even though an online masters in criminal justice may not be required, it is important to educate yourself on the practices and traditions of other individuals. Only when you allow yourself to expand your perception of others can you truly avoid discrimination.
1. 有道 出人 著 『外 国人』入店禁止という人種差別」（有道 出人 著）、単行本 『日本の民族差別 人 種差別撤廃条約からみた課題』』p２１８ー２２９、岡本雅享先生監修・編著、明石書店（株）２００５年６月出版 ["'Gaikokujin' nyuuten kinshi to iu jinshu sabetsu" (Banning "Foreigners" Entry is Racial Discrimination). Chapter in book Nihon no Minzoku Sabetsu--Jinshu Sabetsu Teppai Jouyaku kara mita Kadai, Okamoto Masaktaka, Eds. (Akashi Shoten Inc June 2005)]
2. Arudou, Debito, ‘JAPANESE ONLY’: The Otaru Hot Springs Case and Racial Discrimination in Japan. Akashi Shoten Inc., English 2004, Japanese 2003.
3. Arudou, Debito, “Treatment of Japan’s International Residents: Problems and Solutions for a 21st-Century Japan.” 2001-2005. Artery website for substantiation:
4. Arudou, Debito, “Generating the foreigner crime wave.” Japan Times, October 4, 2002.
5. Arudou, Debito, "Forensic science fiction: Bad science and racism underpin police policy." Japan Times, January 13, 2004.
6. Arudou, Debito , "Downloadable Discrimination: The Immigration Bureau's new snitching Web site is both short-sighted and wide open to all manner of abuses." Japan Times, March 30, 2004. http://www.debito.org/japantimes033004.html
7. Arudou, Debito: “Foreign crime in Japan: More to the issue than meets the eye”. Presentation at Peace as a Global Language Conference Conference IV, Sept 26, 2004, Ritsumeikan U, Kyoto Museum for World Peace. Handout at:
8. Arudou, Debito, “Creating Laws Out of Thin Air: Revisions to hotel laws stretched by police to target foreigners.” Japan Times, March 8, 2005.
9. Arudou, Debito, “Here comes the fear: Antiterrorist law creates legal conundrums for foreign residents.” Japan Times, May 24, 2005. http://www.debito.org/japantimes052405.html
10. Dower, John, Embracing Defeat--Japan in the Wake of World War II. W. W. Norton, 1999.
11. Matsubara, Hiroshi, “Foreigners face long slog to Japanese citizenship.” Japan Times, April 20, 2001.
12. Matsubara, Hiroshi, “Koreans weigh merits of gaining Japanese citizenship.” Japan Times, April 21, 2001.
1. Arudou Debito’s statements to Mr. Doudou Diene of Senegal, Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Tokyo, Japan July 6, 2005.
2. The “Rogues’ Gallery” of exclusionary businesses:
3. On the Prefectural University of Kumamoto Case or
4. The “Blacklist of Japanese Universities”: http://www.debito.org/blacklist.html
5. Japan and the United Nations CERD Committee debate (1998- present) http://www.debito.org/japanvsun.html
13. Pertinent pages on the Otaru Onsens Lawsuit and Ana Bortz Case: http://www.debito.org/otarulawsuit.html or
14. Japanese Cabinet and UN recommendations on immigration into Japan, and how Japan’s police forces generate undue fear of foreign crime. Artery site at http://www.debito.org/A.html
15. Internet human rights group “The Community’s” Mandom Project, where a cosmetic company abandons an ad campaign juxtaposing Rastafarians with a chimpanzee (May-June 2005)
16. Protests over the republication of Little Black Sambo (Chibi Kuro Sanbo) in Japan: http://www.debito.org/chibikurosanbo.html
 Defined by the London School of Economics Center for Civil Society: “Civil society refers to the set of institutions, organizations, and behavior situated between the state, the business world, and the family. Specifically, this includes voluntary and non-profit organizations of many different kinds, philanthropic institutions, social and political movements, other forms of social participation and engagement and the values and cultural patterns associated with them.”