Status Updates From Japan's Minorities: The ill...

Hm, based on this chapter, I do wonder whether these Brazilian Japanese still present themselves as Brazilian in Japan today. It was interesting to read how they basically came to Japan with very idealized images in their head, saw themselves as Japanese in Brazil but then were identified as Brazilian in Japan.Also, this was the last chapter. Sadly.

The way this chapter described Okinawan identity makes it sound like it can be quite strenous and conflicting. The author says that this has been part of Okinawa for centuries now, but it really seems odd. Granted, no clue how much of it is still true today.

So this daimyo Satsuma used Ryükyü to basically trade with foreigners during the Tokugawa period. You know, the more I read about that period the more it is clear that it was never as isolated as claimed so often.

The chapter on zainichi Koreans in Japan and their history was interesting, but it has the problem that so many of its data is almost 20 years old by now. And as for Japan opening... well, it had just basically closed down for 2 years, so I would not put my hope on that.

I skipped this chapter on "multiethnicity" in Japan as well, that is 17 years out of date so who knows how it is today.

I skipped the rest of the chapter, as these "contemporary" chinese are decades out of date

So chinese immigrants to japan at first mostly worked in restaurants, barber shops and clothing industry... that sounds similar to US history.

Yeah, the author has a clear tendency to attribute racism by Japanese and blacks to whites, so strong that with blacks towards okinawans there is no mention of wartime propaganda, just that the blacks are mistreated and so they mistread the japanese. The rest of the chapter is supposed to be "current" time but I skip it, there is no reason to read it.

This is just weird, that the author left it uncommented that this Langston Hughes clearly could not have been correct when he said he hoped that the Japanese won't become colonials, since in 1933 they already had colonies, was bad enough, but she only once called what the empire did colonial abuses but then never again and also she never mentions Thailand as not being colonized either, none of them did.

The author even makes the claim that some japanese buddha statues depict sub saharan africans, but there is no evidence except for that one account and that one could simply have made a mistake due to the coloring of a statue. And while the author often does deal in nuance, I think there is a strong tendency to attribute japanese attitudes towards blacks to outside influence, not their own observations.

So those japanese encountering Africans were influenced by their "European mentors" but then why did none of their views change upon encountering Africans? The author never adresses that, why did it become and stay so negative?

Ok, the author gives some evidence for the presence of black Africans prior to modern times (via the Han and Tang empires) in Japan, however, I do wonder whether the same mistake is made here that is made so often: Equating African with black African, for all we know these Africans mentioned were Northern Africans, which is not unlikely considered the described trade routes.

The current chapter about the burakumin in Japan is really forgettable, I am tempted to just skip it because so far the only interesting and somewhat new thing was that this title developed over time and was not simply there during the Tokugawa period.

Apparently "mixed-blood" here is referring to mixed children who can be easly identified as such, unlike e.g. Japanese/Korean mixes, so who knows whether that term isn't misleading for those not in the know. Also, based on the differing responses to those children in post-war Japan, I do wonder whether the author had been so sympathetic if these were Germans and not Japanese, because the arguments etc. sound similar

As interesting as the information about the Ainu in the 21st century is, I really have to wonder how accurate this still is. This 2nd edition came out in 2009 and deals with information that is no younger than 2003, so almost 13 years out of date by the time I read this. So how are issues like identity, culture, passinge etc. today?

Ok, tourism might not be liked by all AInu, but under the described condition, I really see no other option for raising living standards among them and have some income to deal with their problems. With the described history and social condition, generating and selling Ainu inspired artwork looks like the best option to make a living and continue your culture.

So apparently the origin of the Ainu is more complex than simply being the original inhabitants of japan being pushed ever northwards by the Japanese... I am not surprised at all. According to this chapter, there had been at least two cultures prior and a distinct Ainu culture can only be umabiguously identified in the 13th century, so late middle ages.

oh, the chapter is over and there are notes, I didn't notice that this is a compillation of works by different authors. I guess that will make the book be finished faster.

First the whole treatment of lepers and leprosy as hereditary, then compulsory sterilization being written out of the law in 1996 (started in 1948), now we have something that sounds somewhat like the Völkerschauen in the German Empire, albeit the text isn't clear as to whether the exhibits on Taiwanese, Ainu, Chinese, Koreans and Ryükyüans featured actual people, only that it portrayed them as stuck in the past.

Two things:
1) I hate longass introductions that don't even belong to the official page count
2) Is the similarity between the japanese term minzoku and the chinese minzhu a coinciddence?