Quote:
Christopher Li wrote:
I didn't say "being a Japanese", I said the "Japanese conception" which is somewhat different. Meaning, that Japanese cultural practices don't always translate outside of Japan, and since the Aikikai is an international organization this becomes a source of certain problems.
|
Pardon the JK Rowling use of upper case to indicate LOUD WORDS but...
I did NOT quote you as saying "being a Japanese". I did not quote you AT ALL, but you are attributing a miss-quote to me which is of your own devising.
LOOK:
Quote:
Carl Thompson wrote:
Quote:
Christopher Li wrote:
That's right, and you're seeing the difference between the Japanese conception of what "regulations" should include (which are usually, relatively speaking, extremely non-specific) and the non-Japanese conception. Of course, this is part of the problem.
|
Chris, I realise this is probably not your intended meaning...
How are inherent factors such as ethnicity or nationality a problem here?
That's a losing hand if you're playing a race card that has the hypocrisy of a particular race being somehow less able to conceive something as its value.
|
You used "Japanese conception" as a correction of my alleged misquote of you saying "being a Japanese" (where?) when all I did was respond to your specific use of "the Japanese conception" in reference to a problem which I put in a conditional sentence using "if". I didn't even use the adjective "Japanese" but rather went for the broader concept of what words like "Japanese" represent (their connection to an ethnicity or nation). I was also careful to point out to you that I understood your intended meaning was probably different. I'd consider it nitpicking if it weren't for your putting "regulations" in inverted commas and this context of a discussion about a blog that features a Jim Crow Law picture and talk of sitting at the back of the bus etc.
I do wonder if you would cite the Japanese conception of "regulations" as a problem so freely in your own country or elsewhere internationally. Or is this use of the Japanese conception of "regulations" in connection with problems only for Japan?
Like I said, I don't believe this is your intended meaning. I'm pointing out how it can read, not what I think you think.
Quote:
Christopher Li wrote:
The fact that there is still so much confusion over what should be such a simple thing after 10 years is just symptomatic of the problem.
|
How is it a simple thing?
You are complaining about lack of clarity, but you are not even able to prove that there is a problem or explain your lack of evidence clearly yourself. You have an interview and email exchange from a decade or more ago in one pdf document which is referenced twice for two different points in time, neither of which is within a decade of the present day situation you are alleging. You now seem to be saying your main evidence is actually based upon interviews that you do not seem to mention in the blog and which you cannot post. For someone demanding clarity, you sure make muddy waters.
Pictures of children's macho toy characters may make it look like some kind of joke, but if there is a problem of an actual policy of racial discrimination it is a serious thing. Being made to sit at the back of the bus or pass literary tests to vote due to race are serious situations, but you appear to be drawing grossly disproportionate comparisons to them with no current evidence that is available to the public. You may have good reasons not to publish any evidence, but why not say so from the start? Who is being convoluted here?
If something is going on and you care about it, you could help us. No need for He-Man. Have you contacted Mr Tani for something that
could be published about the present day situation?
Carl