> My biggest problem with the word is that it is used sloppily. It conflates race, culture, language and nationality and assumes a kind of all or nothing approach to them
Westerners are no better - the US does the same for everyone who is not "default" (i.e. white) where they are differentiated by a prefix, usually their heritage, which conflates "culture, language and nationality". Your black Japanese student would be considered "African American", which is beyond absurd.
> Westerners are no better - the US does the same for everyone who is not "default" (i.e. white) where they are differentiated by a prefix, usually their heritage, which conflates "culture, language and nationality". Your black Japanese student would be considered "African American", which is beyond absurd.
Isn't that the grandparent's whole point - that we at least have distinct categories for "whatever-american" and "foreigner", where "gaijin" conflates both and others.
They would. Listen closely to how you and your friends tell stories next time. Race and gender are almost always used to describe people. "My landlord, who's a black guy, <STORY DETAIL THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING BLACK OR BEING A MAN>"
>Race and gender are almost always used to describe people. "My landlord, who's a black guy, <STORY DETAIL THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING BLACK OR BEING A MAN>"
I don't refer to people primarily by their race, and I don't recall my friends doing so. While I don't deny that sort of conversation happens, it's probably not as idiomatic as you seem to believe.
I'm sure you can understand how easily a stereotype like that can fail when applied to a country as populous and diverse as the US.
Westerners are no better - the US does the same for everyone who is not "default" (i.e. white) where they are differentiated by a prefix, usually their heritage, which conflates "culture, language and nationality". Your black Japanese student would be considered "African American", which is beyond absurd.