Japanese... is it right? do they care?

[Guest lazyphil]

i remember when a hmong dude shot to death 5 hunters on private land in minnesota or wisconsin (?) after being challenged as to why he was there, most people here sided with him (tried to justify his actions almost!!) and called the hunters red necked hillbillies etc..... private means private, i agree, if a private club wants to keep a certain race of people out then so be it, be it a club in bkk or hunting land in the usa.....

[Old Hippie]

"...There is your answer. The business owner/operator for a pub is a PRIVATE nightclub. They can decide who they want to serve...."

 

O.k. So then explain to me why women in the USA and elsewhere insist on joining private men's clubs, and why the courts force the clubs to allow them in...?

[Guest]

I got turned away from a japanese restaurant in pattaya but didnt care they didnt have a customer in the place and it was about 8pm. Would be much worse to be indian or paki as I saw them being turned away from discos and go-gos a lot.

[Pom Michael]

OH,

 

This isn't about what is allowed to happen in the US - and it isn't about right or wrong.

 

What about private US military academies? VMI or The Citadel. Before the thinking was that since they were PRIVATE, they could legally accept only males. But then, as you mention, they were challenged with the fact that they accept US funding (direct or indirect), so they should be forced to accept women. Right or Wrong? Most would accept that the public military academies (West Point, Annapolis, etc.) should accept women as their mandate, but that private academies should not have to. What is the situation now? The line has not been clearly drawn in the US either.

 

Should Augusta Country Club (a very private club) be forced to accept blacks? In the end were they force by the courts or by public pressure? Actually they never had a policy against black males, but only females (all). Is that still the situation today?

 

Going back to the original premise here, can/should private establishments be allowed to choose who they can serve? No one would complain if 7-11 decided to ban thieves from all stores, but if they decided to ban all kids under 14 - wait - some of them do that already. So, it must be ok.

[ALHOLK]

How long do you think a bar would stay open if it had a sign outside saying - "Japs not alowed inside".

[Weird]

ALHOLK said:

How long do you think a bar would stay open if it had a sign outside saying - "Japs not alowed inside".

 

If they want to shoot themselves in the foot and say no rich people allowed they could do that too.

[..]

ALHOLK said:

How long do you think a bar would stay open if it had a sign outside saying - "Japs not alowed inside".

Probably a good long time. There are several farang bars that do not allow Middle Eastern & Subcontinental folks inside *and* it is posted as such. Hmmm, where is the bitching about that, I wonder???

 

But as Weird said, why do that? It would be a stupid business decision. The Japanese generally do not make any trouble (as *some* farangs & Middle Eastern types are wont to do) and spend money...maybe not overspend as is their stereotype here, but you certainly do not see then nursing a single beer for two hours in a place.

 

Regards,

SD

[Wallenda]

When I said "public", I meant a place that is open to the general public (in other words, paying walk-in customers) as opposed to private members only who would have to be a registered member before using the facilities of the place. These bars we're talking about are public.

 

Sadaum was upset about my suggesting that his family members died in the name of getting us more hookers. Well, I'm not totally convinced he's actually upset about that, and it seems like a bit of a willful twisting of what I said. But of course I don't think more hookers was the ideal we fought for in World War 2. What I meant was fascist/nazi ideals with racism pretty high on the list. Here we have a situation that includes both of those elements (hookers and racism). And of course THIS particular situation isn't the top priority of what needs to get handled in the world. What you're suggesting is that I should find a worthier cause to complain about. Fair enough. But it still doesn't explain why I should shut up about this one. I mean, you don't seem to have a problem with the people who are saying Japanese only is ok, and they're not talking about more important topics.

 

Japanese only = Whites only - Whites + Japanese

 

Its the same animal. It's a policy based on racism. It only exists because the people the policy wants to please are racists who are not comfortable in the presence of the people they consider to be inferior to them. If you think that's ok and not threatening, well, at least try to understand that some of us who've seen where that kind of attitude leads do get a bit angry about it. I think of 'political correctness' as referring to whether you use the word 'mankind' or "Ms." or whatever -- when you're talking about such a blatantly racist policy as this one, it's kind of off the spectrum of 'political correctness'.

 

There's this lazy non-argument argument going on here that 'this is Asia and you have to get used to their way of doing things'. Or that there's a 'different right and wrong here'. Of course I know that this kind of thing is more accepted here, and more common. That doesn't make it right. The same kind of thing was accepted and common in the American south about 50 yrs ago. Was it right there?

 

It's getting old having to repeat that racial tolerance isn't some lofty ideal that only exists in the US. I think I'm just going to ignore people who chime in with that piece of wisdom from now on. I'm also aware there's spots in the US and other places that are doing equally messed up crap. To me that doesn't seem to make any of these situations right.

 

The reason things are the way they are in Europe and the US is because racial problems took center stage, and we thought about them, considered what was right and wrong, and tried to resolve them in a way that was fair to the ones getting the short end. That didn't happen yet in Japan or Korea. They haven't confronted these problems. They're holding onto self-serving attitudes that disregard the people who suffer under them. It's ok to spit on Hines Ward's mother, she didn't respect the purity of Korean blood. It's ok to block non-Japanese from coming into our restaurant. Of course. Their opinions don't matter, they're not like us.

 

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that, ok maybe it's not all that harmful in the grand scheme of things that I can't go into a Japanese girlie bar. But the attitude that the policy is based on IS a very nasty thing, the tip of the iceberg of a big problem. What I'm saying is that people challenging it any place they find it would be a good thing (whether it's a girlie bar, a restaurant, a toilet or a bus). Somebody needs to wake those people up.

[..]

So will you stop patronizing most of the bars in Cowboy and NEP and the Dynasty Hotel since they do not allow Thai men, Arabs or Indians into their establishments? Or is your bluster all BS and only applies to places you can't go into?

 

Just askin'...

 

EDIT -- despite what you say, as was pointed out before, all of these places are private, in that they are owned by an individual, not the government. Therefore, it is not institutional racism (that is a completely other subject, which you blend in your posts). Believe in the capitalist model, that is what cured racism in the States. When the policies of an extablishment affect the bottom line, they will be changed. Hence you see very few places in America that restrict entry. And the number of Japansese only clubs is falling here too. Be patient...as the old bull said "let's walk down the hill and fuck 'em all." External forces will not cause a change to culture; it needs to want to change; all you can do is suggest and wait for it. Since those J-only clubs are closing down, the Japanese *are* doing something about it.

 

Regards,

SD

 

PS -- But of course IMHO showed your true colors when you posted "you have to admit it's kind of fucked up for the Japanese to be invading the bars catering to westerners en masse. Interesting choice of words there...a group of guys go out with their friends to some bar and you call it an organized and deliberate invasion, as opposed to them simply seeking and finding a better product, therefore leading to the closure of the J-only bars to which you refer. Methinks you can climb off of your high horse now, cuz it appears to me you just do not like Japanese folks.

[Wallenda]

This is getting exhausting.

 

I don't think I could have made it more clear what I meant by a public place. A business that's open to the general public, where you don't need a private membership to enter. Pretty simple. Any arguments elsewhere, about private ownership vs govt ownership -- irrelevant. It's a waste of time to follow a tangent that's only been created by a (probably willful) misunderstanding of what I meant by the word public.

 

I think I also made it pretty clear that what I don't like is racism and policies based on racism. If you want to imagine that that's not really true, that something else other than what I'm saying is the real truth, well, I guess I can't do anything about that. You can fight with your imagination by yourself.

 

Somewhere earlier you accused me of racism. Not sure what I said that you could possibly be basing that on, so I didn't take it seriously and just ignored it. (see above)

 

I said there was an organized and deliberate invasion of western bars? Really? I'm noticing a possibly organized and deliberate trend of your quoting me and imagining that I'm saying something very different than what I said. If you thought I meant that there's an organized conspiracy to invade western bars by Japanese, well, I'm sorry you had that impression. You seem unusually prone to misunderstandings like that.

 

Your point about my patronizing clubs that don't allow Arabs or Indians isn't bad, I'll give you that. I wasn't aware of that being the case, that policy, if it really is true. (I'm not totally convinced yet that it is true) A few weeks ago I went to Hollywood on the top of Nana Plaza, and also Rainbow 3, with a black friend. No problems. I'm pretty sure I saw some guys who looked Indian in Hollywood. Which places have a policy like that? How do you know? I don't see why they'd have a policy like that. The vast majority of westerners are perfectly comfortable and used to being in the same place with people of different races, and believe that that is how things should be. It certainly wouldn't be on our account that they'd want to bar Indians or Arabs. In our home countries, that would be illegal.

 

But to imagine your example for a second... ok... let's suppose I went with my Indian friend to a bar in Nana Plaza. On entering, some Thai security guy steps in our way and tells my friend he can't come in. What would I do? Honestly, I'd say "WHAT?!?!! WHY NOT?" And I'd insist that he explain why my friend can't come in. Depending on how angry I was getting, I might be getting angry and increasing my volume. But maybe not, since I know this is just some security guy who might not speak English very well. I would say I want to talk to the manager. Then talking to the manager, I'd say that we were jsut refused entry. If the manager backed up the security guy and refused us entry, and admitted the reason was because Indians can't come in, then I'd head into the club and try to continue the conversation (loudly) there so the other customers would get some clue what was going on. And I'd probably be persistent enough to get myself thrown out by force. Which is exactly the kind of ugly scene that a policy like that should create. And I guess after a scene like that, I'm probably not going back to that place again. And after many scenes like that, the Thais would realize that we very much don't dig it if they discriminate, and that it's not worth it.

 

OK so I have to say that if someone replies here with more misinterpretations of what I said, and that's all there is to respond to, I think I'm not going to take the bait again. If there's some point made about something that was actually said, I might reply to that. I think what I've written is clear enough that a reasonable person can read and understand it and agree or disagree. It feels like a waste of time to further clarify myself when it seems like someone is not truly misunderstanding me but only pretending to, and that's actually what I now think is happening here. An 'argument' like that could go on to the end of time, and it's pretty pointless and tedious.