Foreigners spotted near scene of attempted murder

Japan isn’t like the US or the UK, most people can’t pinpoint ethnicity by just seeing someone in the dark. It could be that the foreigners were speaking something other than japanese (or foreigner-like beheviour), but the witnesses didn’t clearly see the face? There are a several possibilities that could lead to a vague “foreigner” description without being able to pinpoint exactly which type they were.

>most people can’t pinpoint ethnicity by just seeing someone in the dark.

Why should Japanese people be any different from American or British people in this respect? Do they have inferior eyesight? Or is it that Japanese culture lumps humans into only ‘Japanese (us)’ or ‘foreigners (them)’ categories?

Describing a suspect as merely a ‘foreigner’ is almost as useless and describing him/her as a ‘human’.

Ponta, there is nothing racist about describing a suspect as ‘white’, ‘black’ or pink and blue polka-dot.

Now please explain away why there is nothing racist about describing a suspect as white,black while it is xenophobia to describe a suspect as a foreigner.

“Because describing a suspect as ‘white’ or ‘black’ is providing real information that can be useful is identifying him / her”

I wonder. I would bet that “foreign” nails down a lot more people in Japan than “black” or “white” does in the UK or US. Obviously, nailing it down even further would be better–can’t they tell if the people were Euro, African, or Asian?

Because describing a suspect as ‘white’ or ‘black’ is providing real information that can be useful is identifying him / her

Describing a suspect as a foreigner can be useful in one way or another in a society where the rate of foreign population is low.

I understand the argument that since naming a group such as a race, nationality, being foreigner etc might create and/or facilitate prejudice when reporting a crime, it is desirable not to mention it in the media.
In fact, I hear some media in some European countries refrain from mentioning it for that reason.
There are pros and cons about it.

But I still don’t understand someone is not vending his racism in describing a suspect as African-American, white mad etc. while he is vending his xenophobia in describing a suspect as a foreigner.

I think it is inconsistent and I feel you are applying the double standard here.
And if you say in both cases, the witness is vending some sort of hatred/prejudice toward a specific type of group, it is consistent;though, it still depends on shaky theory in my opinion.

Please articulate the differences and articulate your groud of psychology that says when someone is describing a suspect as a foreigner, she is vending her xenophobia.

That’s why my Japanese friends still refer to me as simply a “gaijin”.

Tell your friends to refer to you as your name, your nationality—whatever you want to be called. That is all there is to it.

その後の調べで、事件前後に現場付近で不審な若い外国人３～４人が目撃されていたことがわかった。
http://www.news24.jp/articles/2009/09/11/07143565.html

It could be helpful for the local people to know the suspects are young and people whom the local people perceive as foreigners where people perceived as foreigners are not many.
And the point is that in both cases since the term refers to a specific group, it is useful at the same time, there is a possibility that innocent people belonging to the group might be seen as suspicious.

But if we can narrow down the “gaikokujin” to be even more specific, that is even more useful.

Right.
But the question remains why someone is vending his xenophobia when describing a suspect as a foreigner and why it is okay to describe a suspect as an African American, for instance while it is not okay to describe a suspect as a foreigner when both cases might make the local populace suspicious of people belonging to the group.

The color of shirt is less useless because the suspect change clothes.
Being taller than 173 cm can be useful information. Being other than 173 cm is practically useless though theoretically not entirely useless.
In any case, the questions I raised above remain.

Nothing wrong with giving information that describes the physical appearance of a suspect,“African American” – describes the physical appearance (skin tone) of the suspect.

What is the physical appearance of African-American?
The skin tone of African-American,in reality, could be white, yellow brown and black. (You know “passing”, African-American who passed for white to avoid racial discrimination.)
But the local people hold some beliefs about “African-American”. That is what is used in identifying here.
People whom the local people perceive as foreigners in Japan have some traits such as physical appearance and the accent they speak;though in reality someone just like traditional Japanese could be a foreigner. It is what the local people hold about foreigner that is used here.

Walk around Tokyo anywhere, you can easily spot people the local people regard as foreign-looking because there are a few among traditional Japanese looking people and because they stand out.
It would be rather surprising if you couldn’t tell people the local people take as foreigners from traditional Japanese.

I can understand why a lot of foreigners see its use by police as an example of xenophobia.

For the reasons stated above, I still see DC’s comments inconsistent and I still don’t see why someone is vending his xenophobia in describing a suspect as a foreigner.

The smaller the group, the better.

People whom the Japanese take as foregners on the street are the small group in Japan. Perhaps in many communities, the ratio is smaller than the ratio of African-Americans in the U.S.

Okay, now I understood your point.,
Still my point is that it is inconsistent to hold that it is okay to call a suspect African-American in the U.S.while it is not okay to call a suspect gaikokujin in Japan when both cases raise the concern in a similar way. And if you are right that the smaller the group the better, it can be said that Japanese practice might be better.

Thus since race is less mutable than nationality, it is better in that sense.

Race is a difficult notion for me, and perhaps for many Japanese, to grasp. In terms of skin color, we have hakujin(whites) and kokujin(blacks) but no word for brown and perhaps we rarely use the word “ousyokujin”(yellow).
I agree that since naturalized citizens are increasing, we should not assume that just because they look, say, white, they are not Japanese.
Maybe we should create new practice, but I wonder if that works. My guess is that people will continue to use a vague notion like Asian,African-American in English speaking countries and gaikokujin in Japan,relying on the images the local people associate with those words.
I’ve persisted in the debate because I have a feeling that in another blog on Japan’s problem, some non-Japanese use the double standard without anybody criticizing it—don’t get me wrong, some Japanese mistakenly use the double standard too—-and mistakenly imply that it is not unusual, unlike their home country, that the Japanese vend their xenophobia.

In that case how do you think we should refer to Ruy Ramos type of people?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruy_Ramos

Its quite entertaining to see Japanese on this thread basically requesting specific instructions on how to be minimally sophisticated about race topics.

Except to make the local Japanese populace even more suspicious and wary of any foreigners who may live in their neighbourhood.

The local populace might get even more suspcious and wary of any black people who may live in their neighborhood when when you refer to a suspect as an African-American
I am wondering why it is an instance of xenophobia in one case while it is not an instance of racism.