Current Events > Do the white people in Japan complain and shout for more whites in jtv / movies?

(+) Yeah! (+)

or any other country featuring the majority of the population being a different ethnicity?
---

Difference being, you know, America is a country almost entirely made of immigrants from all over the world ...

i know, we are very lucky to live in a place that is actually multicultural

but you will start to see this happen all over the world as time progresses, so i was wondering if these complaints and issues have been brought up yet
---

Well, none of us are psychics, so we can't tell you what will happen. In the generally homogeneous Japan, I doubt it's an issue (as all the major ethnic groups, as in the ethnic group, are represented).

It comes off like you are bitching, though. "They don't do it, so we shouldn't have to either". I mean, if we start going down that path, we can pretty much justify any heinous or illegal action.

what's the ratio of japanese | white that would be needed for you to consider their issues legitimate?

there are white kids growing up there right now filled with media and stories that include no white men. How can these kids become anything at all when all of their heroes are japanese? Even santa clause is japanese!
---

Welp, you're either trolling, or some sort of pro-white campaigner.

Why am i any of these things?

Do you not see this as an issue?
---

Because you are equating the debate over representation in the highly diverse United States to the racially homogeneous Japan.

Santanese
---

Dash_Harber posted...

Because you are equating the debate over representation in the highly diverse United States to the racially homogeneous Japan.

at what point does the needs of those in your country, matter? as i said before what's the ratio
---

TwoStrikes94 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Because you are equating the debate over representation in the highly diverse United States to the racially homogeneous Japan.

at what point does the needs of those in your country, matter? as i said before what's the ratio

Uh, whatever the ratio is in real life... you're acting like it's this big mystery which no one will explain when people are quite clear about it. They'll usually say something like "10% of the population is black but only 2% of leading actors are black" or else they'll point out that a certain demographic is almost nonexistent in spite of being very numerous in real life. Like the huge lack of gay people in anything other but small side roles until a decade or two ago, or the Oscars choosing NO black people for any major nominations, or how even the background characters in the sitcom Friends were almost all white people even though it took place in New York City. Are you just pretending you don't know?

Japan is something like 1% foreigners and that probably reflects their representation on TV. And when foreigners are in Japanese media, the vast majority tend to be white people from America or Europe, so if anything whites are overrepresented. If anyone feels underrepresented it's Koreans and Chinese, who are almost nonexistent in Japanese TV and movies in spite of being much more numerous that whites.
---

Japan wouldn't entertain the SJW belief of the idea that all white people are responsible for all the bad in the world.

X777WgpUYZ5Hv23 posted...

Japan wouldn't entertain the SJW belief of the idea that all white people are responsible for all the bad in the world.

No, but it is true that Europe's colonialism and conquest did screw up many parts of the world.
---

I think this SJW shit only exists because of slavery.

I think if America was just a country where all migrants came like they all did post-slavery

no one would take sjwism seriously because they came to our country so they have no right to make demends because they can leave if they don't like it

Solar_Crimson posted...

No, but it is true that Europe's colonialism and conquest did screw up many parts of the world.

Nope!

Solar_Crimson posted...

No, but it is true that Europe's colonialism and conquest did screw up many parts of the world.

That literally ended decades before you were born.
---

X777WgpUYZ5Hv23 posted...

Solar_Crimson posted...

No, but it is true that Europe's colonialism and conquest did screw up many parts of the world.

Nope!

Some examples...

North America - Native Americans were essentially wiped out, either unintentionally or deliberately ("manifest destiny", the idea that God ordained that White people take the land from the native inhabitants). Sometimes, this was because precious minerals such as gold was found at the location.

Africa - Many European nations drew borders around so that tribes that didn't like each other were forced to interact and this caused conflict. Also, some European powers pillaged the continent for precious materials and abused the natives if they did not perform to satisfaction ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State ); also, apartheid in South Africa, an instance where the White minority seized power and kept it away from the Black majority for centuries.

Plus, of course, the slave trade; yes, African caught and sold slaves among themselves, but African slavery was much different than American slavery was; in the former, a slave would work only a few years, and would automatically be freed and become a member of his/her new society; with American slavery, they were slaves for life, had every bit of culture stripped away from them, and even their children were born into slavery.

Central and South America - Same as what occurred in North America, with the tribes that had been living there being culled by Spanish powers.
---

Solar_Crimson posted...

Some examples...

Again: nope!

I didn't read the rest of your post, sorry.
We don't y'know, only focus on one race here. But good job on getting yourself a SJW tag.

X777WgpUYZ5Hv23 posted...

Solar_Crimson posted...

Some examples...

Again: nope!

I didn't read the rest of your post, sorry.
We don't y'know, only focus on one race here. But good job on getting yourself a SJW tag.

The topic is about White people.

Maybe you should read the post and educate yourself before committing yourself to being yet another alt-right clown.
---

Highwind07 posted...

The effects of colonialism is still being felt today >_>.

Right. Can't expect some of the people here to understand, though. Either that, or they're in denial because they generally benefit from those aftereffects (and calls anyone who brings them up a "SJW").
---

Solar_Crimson posted...

The topic is about White people.

lol.
This guy.
"It's about white people so that means I get to blame them for things!"
*ignores the fact it's about the racism they face in Japan*

The Democratic platform has been 'fuck white people !' for a while now.

Nah, liberals aren't bad.
It's just a case of some alt left trolls think they can claim to be liberal to support their racism.
Kinda like BLM being hijacked into what it is now

X777WgpUYZ5Hv23 posted...

Solar_Crimson posted...

The topic is about White people.

lol.
This guy.
"It's about white people so that means I get to blame them for things!"
*ignores the fact it's about the racism they face in Japan*

I'm blaming Europe specifically, not all White people.

You brought up the whole "SJWs blaming White people for all the ills of the world" thing, and that's where this jumped off from.
---

Christ CE can be fucking dense sometimes
---

People try to connect sjw shit to the crazist things sometimes
---

Whites are actually very very very dis-proportionally represented in Japanese media. There also aren't enough white in Japan on a permanent basis for them to have nay consideration politically.
---

While the race of these people are unknown. Given the population that they service, it is a highly likely that at least one of these people with crazy rants are white . And this is not even people living in a place, yet they are complaining about what the locals do.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blogdramedy/idiotic-travel-complaints_b_4073107.html
---

Solar_Crimson posted...

Many European nations drew borders around so that tribes that didn't like each other were forced to interact and this caused conflict.

That argument can be over-emphasized.

Look, nearly every modern state -- whether in Africa, Europe, Asia, or the Americas -- has “artificial” borders. Their boundary posts have been arbitrarily fixed either by the see-sawing fortunes of war, or by the stroke of a pen in some distant (often foreign) capital. Dozens of modern states are patchwork quilts of different regional, ethno-cultural or religious identities, thanks to history's loose ends. Untidy patterns of human migration and settlement make nonsense of the idea that 100% "pure", cookie-cutter nation-states can be carved out by neat lines. But so what? Half the world isn't made up of imploding failed states because of it -- and to be fair, neither is Africa.

Blaming all of Africa's ills on dotted lines drawn by Europeans doesn't explain how countries like Tanzania have managed to make them work remarkably well for decades. It doesn't explain why two tribes, the Krahn and the Gio, kicked the shit out of each other on the Liberia side of the Cavalla River during the civil war in 1989-96 yet at the same time coexisted peacefully together on the Côte d’Ivoire side. It doesn't explain why one of the worst genocides of the 20th century happened in a country (Rwanda) whose borders were drawn by mwami (king) Kigeli Rwabugiri in the 19th century, not by Europeans.

Not only do Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda share the same language and the same religion, but the two groups intermarried and lived side by side in mixed neighbourhoods long before the Germans turned up in 1897. So Hutu and Tutsi lives were already tightly interwoven in their own web of power relationships by the time Europeans arrived on the scene.

It should be pointed out too, that "tribal" identities can be fluid and complex things. In pre-colonial Rwandan society, Hutu who climbed the social ladder could be icyihuture -- de-hutuized, or tutsified. And sometimes these identities are of very recent construction. The Nandi-speaking peoples of Kenya transformed themselves into the Kalenjin -- an imagined community that includes the Pokot, Tugen, Keiyo, Marakwet, Nandi, Kispigis and the Terik -- only in the 1950s; the Mijikenda identity was invented in the 1930s. It’s worth bearing in mind when you hear someone talking loosely about “age-old tribal hatreds”.

Yes, border disputes can cause tensions and frictions (there were over 100 diplomatic squabbles between African states in the first decade of independence), but inter-state wars to re-draw maps in Africa have been remarkably rare since 1960, and so have tribal separatist insurgencies. It's not borders as much as policies (especially ones that involve the redistribution of land) that sharpen divisions within states.
---

European countries are white. Asian countries are Asian. African countries are black.

America is not meant to be bounded to any one specific race. To think otherwise is to be, ironically, unAmerican.
---

Funkdamental posted...

Solar_Crimson posted...

Many European nations drew borders around so that tribes that didn't like each other were forced to interact and this caused conflict.

That argument can be over-emphasized.

Look, nearly every modern state -- whether in Africa, Europe, Asia, or the Americas -- has “artificial” borders. Their boundary posts have been arbitrarily fixed either by the see-sawing fortunes of war, or by the stroke of a pen in some distant (often foreign) capital. Dozens of modern states are patchwork quilts of different regional, ethno-cultural or religious identities, thanks to history's loose ends. Untidy patterns of human migration and settlement make nonsense of the idea that 100% "pure", cookie-cutter nation-states can be carved out by neat lines. But so what? Half the world isn't made up of imploding failed states because of it -- and to be fair, neither is Africa.

Blaming all of Africa's ills on dotted lines drawn by Europeans doesn't explain how countries like Tanzania have managed to make them work remarkably well for decades. It doesn't explain why two tribes, the Krahn and the Gio, kicked the shit out of each other on the Liberia side of the Cavalla River during the civil war in 1989-96 yet at the same time coexisted peacefully together on the Côte d’Ivoire side. It doesn't explain why one of the worst genocides of the 20th century happened in a country (Rwanda) whose borders were drawn by mwami (king) Kigeli Rwabugiri in the 19th century, not by Europeans.

Not only do Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda share the same language and the same religion, but the two groups intermarried and lived side by side in mixed neighbourhoods long before the Germans turned up in 1897. So Hutu and Tutsi lives were already tightly interwoven in their own web of power relationships by the time Europeans arrived on the scene.

It should be pointed out too, that "tribal" identities can be fluid and complex things. In pre-colonial Rwandan society, Hutu who climbed the social ladder could be icyihuture -- de-hutuized, or tutsified. And sometimes these identities are of very recent construction. The Nandi-speaking peoples of Kenya transformed themselves into the Kalenjin -- an imagined community that includes the Pokot, Tugen, Keiyo, Marakwet, Nandi, Kispigis and the Terik -- only in the 1950s; the Mijikenda identity was invented in the 1930s. It’s worth bearing in mind when you hear someone talking loosely about “age-old tribal hatreds”.

Yes, border disputes can cause tensions and frictions (there were over 100 diplomatic squabbles between African states in the first decade of independence), but inter-state wars to re-draw maps in Africa have been remarkably rare since 1960, and so have tribal separatist insurgencies. It's not borders as much as policies (especially ones that involve the redistribution of land) that sharpen divisions within states.

And with climate change and an exploding population, there is reason to believe things will get worse, not better for Africa.
---

Japan is probably one of the most racist developed country.
---

Mandasnake posted...

And with climate change and an exploding population, there is reason to believe things will get worse, not better for Africa.

Some countries will obviously be affected far worse than others. For Burundi, already creaking and groaning under the strains of population pressure, crisis point is going to be reached within maybe the next couple of decades. For countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo on the other hand, the story is a tragic one of policy failure that has left a huge potential of natural resources untapped. (The DRC has immense energy potential in terms of hydropower -- if fully developed, the Inga Dam complex would be the biggest generator of electricity in the world -- and its wealth of arable land could make it the larder of Africa.)
---

Funkdamental posted...

Some countries will obviously be affected far worse than others. For Burundi, already creaking and groaning under the strains of population pressure, crisis point is going to be reached within maybe the next couple of decades. For countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo on the other hand, the story is a tragic one of policy failure that has left a huge potential of natural resources untapped. (The DRC has immense energy potential in terms of hydropower -- if fully developed, the Inga Dam complex would be the biggest generator of electricity in the world -- and its wealth of arable land could make it the larder of Africa.)

Population 80 million
GDP per capita....

387

yeah its not gonna happen.
---

Dash_Harber posted...

Difference being, you know, America is a country almost entirely made of immigrants from all over the world ...

So it would be different if we were indigenous to our country?

Like in Europe?

How long do we have to be here anyway? Some of us have roots stretching back 300-400 years. Not everyone descended from an immigrant at the turn of the 20th century.
---

Mandasnake posted...

Funkdamental posted...

Some countries will obviously be affected far worse than others. For Burundi, already creaking and groaning under the strains of population pressure, crisis point is going to be reached within maybe the next couple of decades. For countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo on the other hand, the story is a tragic one of policy failure that has left a huge potential of natural resources untapped. (The DRC has immense energy potential in terms of hydropower -- if fully developed, the Inga Dam complex would be the biggest generator of electricity in the world -- and its wealth of arable land could make it the larder of Africa.)

Population 80 million
GDP per capita....

387

yeah its not gonna happen.

Not without considerable foreign investment. And the Inga Dam project does have foreign investors. The problem is the policy environment -- although there have been important administrative reforms under Kabila since 2011, the momentum's been lost now he's putting more effort into securing himself a third term as president (despite the political conflicts it's causing) and putting all other priorities on the back burner.
---

Funkdamental posted...

Not without foreign investment. And the Inga Dam project does have foreign investors. The problem is the policy environment -- although there have been important administrative reforms under Kabila since 2011, the momentum's been lost now he's putting more effort into securing himself a third term as president (despite the political conflicts it's causing) and putting all other priorities on the back burner.

like I said, not gonna happen. climate change is going to get worse,

China isn't growing so fast anymore, that Africa spurt is over...

yeah, its fucked dude.

And Africa's problems in 2030 will be worse, just because there will be nearly 2 billion people on that continent.
---

But here comes Bill Gates, come to tell us the world is going to be a better place no matter what...
---

back when europe was 'messing up parts of the world', everyone else was messing up and doing terrible things too, just a lot of them kept it to themselves... or tried to do it elsewhere and failed
---

Solar_Crimson posted...

X777WgpUYZ5Hv23 posted...

Solar_Crimson posted...

No, but it is true that Europe's colonialism and conquest did screw up many parts of the world.

Nope!

Some examples...

North America - Native Americans were essentially wiped out, either unintentionally or deliberately ("manifest destiny", the idea that God ordained that White people take the land from the native inhabitants). Sometimes, this was because precious minerals such as gold was found at the location.

Africa - Many European nations drew borders around so that tribes that didn't like each other were forced to interact and this caused conflict. Also, some European powers pillaged the continent for precious materials and abused the natives if they did not perform to satisfaction ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State ); also, apartheid in South Africa, an instance where the White minority seized power and kept it away from the Black majority for centuries.

Plus, of course, the slave trade; yes, African caught and sold slaves among themselves, but African slavery was much different than American slavery was; in the former, a slave would work only a few years, and would automatically be freed and become a member of his/her new society; with American slavery, they were slaves for life, had every bit of culture stripped away from them, and even their children were born into slavery.

Central and South America - Same as what occurred in North America, with the tribes that had been living there being culled by Spanish powers.

You're just spewing racist, leftist propaganda. Slavery in Africa was exceptionally brutal. Research the kingdom of Dahomey which would sometimes even sacrificed its slaves (who were otherwise condemned to working on plantations). In fact, this kingdom resisted British efforts to abolish slavery for years.

Read up on the sex/rape slavery perped by African Muslims and their castration of male slaves so they couldn't reproduce. In fact, millions of African slaves were murdered by African slavers just in the death marches to European slavers. There was no good slavery in Africa.

As for the Congo Free State, what many on the left fail to mention is that the vast majority of intentional deaths came at the hands of other African tribes who were using their colonial power to settle personal tribal grudges. And there's no convincing evidence that millions died. There were no census records, and even then population democide is often a poor benchmarck for determining death tolls. That's how we get these absurdly high death tolls for the Mongol Conquests (100 million dead? yeah right). I prefer counting graves, like in the case of Pal Pot.

so that tribes that didn't like each other were forced to interact and this caused conflict.

I just love how you blame African bigotry on white people. LOL
---

TwoStrikes94 posted...

back when europe was 'messing up parts of the world', everyone else was messing up and doing terrible things too, just a lot of them kept it to themselves... or tried to do it elsewhere and failed

Take for example, the Turkish genocide of Armenians and Pontian Greeks in the 1900s -- which served as a model for the Nazis later on.
---

Mandasnake posted...

yeah, its fucked dude.

There is no such thing as an African economy. There are African economies -- and they have sharply divergent patterns and rates of growth. Excluding oil exporters and North African countries, the rest of Africa posted accelerating growth at an average annual rate of 4.4% from 2010 to 2015, compared to 4.1% from 2000 to 2010. Africa as a whole is projected by the IMF to be the world's second-fastest-growing economy by 2020. It has a young population, and will soon have the fastest urbanization rate in the world. By 2034, the region is expected to have a larger workforce than either China or India -- and so far, job creation is outpacing growth in the labour force.

Spending by consumers and businesses today totals $4 trillion. Household consumption is expected to grow at 3.8% a year to 2025 to reach $2.1 trillion, while business spending is expected to grow from $2.6 trillion in 2015 to $3.5 trillion by 2025.

The September 2016 report by McKinsey & Company, Lions on the Move II: Realizing the Potential of Africa's Economies, paints quite a different picture from a "fucked continent". Economic performance on a country-by-country basis may be patchy, but there's no need for doomsday predictions for Africa.

http://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/middle-east-and-africa/lions-on-the-move-realizing-the-potential-of-africas-economies
---

Funkdamental posted...

accelerating growth at an average annual rate of 4.4% from 2010 to 2015,

Which doesn't mean much when you remember....

The population growth percentage...

Yeah. And what was the growth in 2016? The spurt arguably ended.

There aren't enough resources on this Earth for billions of Africans to live middle class lives anyways.
---

Solar_Crimson posted...

X777WgpUYZ5Hv23 posted...

Solar_Crimson posted...

No, but it is true that Europe's colonialism and conquest did screw up many parts of the world.

Nope!

Some examples...

North America - Native Americans were essentially wiped out, either unintentionally or deliberately ("manifest destiny", the idea that God ordained that White people take the land from the native inhabitants). Sometimes, this was because precious minerals such as gold was found at the location.

Africa - Many European nations drew borders around so that tribes that didn't like each other were forced to interact and this caused conflict. Also, some European powers pillaged the continent for precious materials and abused the natives if they did not perform to satisfaction ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State ); also, apartheid in South Africa, an instance where the White minority seized power and kept it away from the Black majority for centuries.

Plus, of course, the slave trade; yes, African caught and sold slaves among themselves, but African slavery was much different than American slavery was; in the former, a slave would work only a few years, and would automatically be freed and become a member of his/her new society; with American slavery, they were slaves for life, had every bit of culture stripped away from them, and even their children were born into slavery.

Central and South America - Same as what occurred in North America, with the tribes that had been living there being culled by Spanish powers.

White people didn't screw up Africa. Africans screwed up Africa.
---

Like dude. Those non-oil states are poor as shit.
---

XHJYFL posted...

Solar_Crimson posted...

X777WgpUYZ5Hv23 posted...

Solar_Crimson posted...

No, but it is true that Europe's colonialism and conquest did screw up many parts of the world.

Nope!

Some examples...

North America - Native Americans were essentially wiped out, either unintentionally or deliberately ("manifest destiny", the idea that God ordained that White people take the land from the native inhabitants). Sometimes, this was because precious minerals such as gold was found at the location.

Africa - Many European nations drew borders around so that tribes that didn't like each other were forced to interact and this caused conflict. Also, some European powers pillaged the continent for precious materials and abused the natives if they did not perform to satisfaction ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State ); also, apartheid in South Africa, an instance where the White minority seized power and kept it away from the Black majority for centuries.

Plus, of course, the slave trade; yes, African caught and sold slaves among themselves, but African slavery was much different than American slavery was; in the former, a slave would work only a few years, and would automatically be freed and become a member of his/her new society; with American slavery, they were slaves for life, had every bit of culture stripped away from them, and even their children were born into slavery.

Central and South America - Same as what occurred in North America, with the tribes that had been living there being culled by Spanish powers.

White people didn't screw up Africa. Africans screwed up Africa.

Not all of Africa is screwed up. Some countries are doing quite well and they were also colonial territories. Only Ethiopia wasn't.
---

Ammonitida posted...

Not all of Africa is screwed up.

Aside from maybe Gabon and a few other tiny pockets the entire continent is screwed up.
---

Mandasnake posted...

Ammonitida posted...

Not all of Africa is screwed up.

Aside from maybe Gabon and a few other tiny pockets the entire continent is screwed up.

Ghana has 27 million people.
---

Mandasnake posted...

Ammonitida posted...

Not all of Africa is screwed up.

Aside from maybe Gabon and a few other tiny pockets the entire continent is screwed up.

Nigeria was doing fairly well until Boko Haram showed up.

Botswana is still one of the most successful African states.
---