Because it’s far easier for someone with a great vision about how to use the state’s wealth for everybody’s benefit to get themselves elected to the governing body than it is for them to get themselves reincarnated as an aristocrat.
Is it though? In the US, I think, it’s far easier for someone to make a billion dollars, and thus be able to buy a bunch of land or whatnot, than it is for a president or major politician to be elected with a clear enough vision to do something.
I base this on the number of new billionaires vs the number of major new political initiatives.
I think it’s quite easy to have a vision, but very difficult to filter those through the will of the people. In the sense that a great vision is very subjective and may not be believed by the large number of people necessary to change things in a constitutional republic.
> someone with a great vision about how to use the state’s wealth for everybody’s benefit
History shows that such people are much, much rarer than people who have a great vision about how to use wealth they have either inherited or built up themselves for everybody's benefit. Or, to put it another way, people with a great vision that will actually work are far more likely to become entrepreneurs than politicians. Bill Gates is eradicating malaria using his own wealth while governments have failed to do so for centuries.
It’s still there at an institutional and cultural level - I think the most glaring example of this is the amount of landlords who either openly or discreetly (with a phone call to your realtor) will not rent property to foreigners.
I think this has more to do with the fact that the landlord is not comfortable dealing with someone who doesnt speak the same language. Also I have heard ( no citations) from my Japanese collegues that the laws are heavily biased in favor of the tenant. Its very hard to evict them. So a Japanese home owner ( conservative as they are) wouldn’t want to take a risk for no additional advantage.
If foreigners are perceived as being higher risk, and they probably are, then I don't see any problem with landlords discriminating against them in general. It just means that the standard will be higher to offset whatever the risk is. There are some landlords who probably won't rent to foreigners at all, and that's fine, too. There are plenty of places available.
If this kind of thing would bother you, I would strongly recommend not considering moving to Japan.
If they are a higher risk, it's just risk mitigation. If English teacher foreigners are 25x more likely to break their lease than a Japanese person making the same salary, then it's not worth renting to them for the same price.
You can call it whatever you want, but it's part of being a foreigner. If you don't like it, then stay in the country of your citizenship/heritage.
If in the US, a black man is 2X more likely to have committed a murder than a white man, is it not worth associating with them?
This is absolutely the root of racism. Acting out of fear and self-preservation in a self-sustaining loop.
The most insidious kind of racism to me isn't the mindless hatred that you sometimes see. It's the thoughtful, logical-sounding explanations that justify the behavior.
I don’t really care who you choose to associate or not associate with regardless of the reason.
If a landlord doesn’t want me because I’m a foreigner, that’s fine with me. If I ask why and he explains the risk profile, I can offer to pay for my 2-year lease up front to mitigate the risk.
If the landlord won’t take 2 years payment up front, that’s her prerogative and I’ll find a different place.
I don’t understand the obsession with wanting to force people into economic transactions they don’t want to participate in.
Fortunately for me, I’ve literally never been denied an apartment or a service or anything at all due to my race in Japan. But hypothetically, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. Discrimination laws are a violation of freedom of association and they increase the cost of transactions because people can’t state their prejudices publicly.
Insurance companies charge men more than women for car insurance because the data shows they're more risky. Is that gender discrimination? There's a line somewhere between -isms and data driven decisions.
Is it gender discrimination: Yes. Is it legally protected gender discrimination: Also yes!
Welcome to systemic problems!
"Data Driven Decisions" are almost always about "this consumer/user group will probably do X". This is discriminatory against people in the group who don't/won't do X. Insurance companies (and college admissions boards, and police deciding where to send officers) do their best to try and remove broad categories (race, sex, etc) and tailor their data to a specific outcome, but that doesn't mean data can't be used to discriminate. "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics" after all.
There is a line, but it moves, and it's blurry, and sometimes it's not really a line but more of a circle. The point is, sometimes these things are bad/discriminatory but they're allowed to keep happening because that's how we've always done things or something to that effect.
Dealing with people as groups is at the heart of -isms and stereotyping/discrimination. It's also how data/statistics tend to treat people.
I'll just note for posterity that I was arguing that these stereotypes about 'foreign people' are just as toxic as stereotypes about 'black people', not that I believe in these stereotypes about black people or foreigners.
At first the supposed religiousness of it annoyed me too - but over time it sat ok with me. If you think about it, the audio course they use for the sessions was recorded back in the 90s, and back then this was refreshingly religion free. Lots of the work on meditation (things like Search Inside Yourself) which have completely reduced the amount of religion in it, are very recent compared to Goenka's course, so I think you have to take it as a product of its time. With a partial Indian background, a few times I've tried Indian writing on meditation, etc, and it is so seemingly intricately bound up with religion (almost to the point of superstition), that to extricate it as much as Goenka did for the vipassana course I think is still great work.
Unfortunately I have to agree that it does attract a lot of participants who want to believe in magic and superstition. I was very disappointed when the course was over and I found this out. Perhaps that is why Goenka is very clear in the recordings to be skeptical and only take what one finds useful from the practice.
Promo video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLFyIdNvEb0