Talk:Gaijin/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Synchronization with Japanese article

Whoever's selectively synchronizing this with the Japanese article, don't forget to include the part from the Japanese article where it's stated that the perception of "gaijin" as a discriminatory term is "because non-Asian foreigners generally lack sufficient ability in the Japanese language to understand the correct nuances of the term". Sheesh. 220.106.213.88

Politeness vs. Formality

Overall looks like a very balanced article, so nice work people. One important distinction to keep in mind is that between politeness and formality. Formality is long, elevated speech. Politeness is "what is appropriate for the occasion." Thus a formal phrase is not necessarily polite, depending on the situation. As I wrote, if your best friends started using formal speech (keigo) around you, they're being impolite. -Tachi 06:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes Needed

The articles seems fairly well written and balanced to me. However, a topic as subjective as the meaning of the word in question really calls-out for a well-referenced, sourced article. To me that means quoting a valid reference at the end of every sentence in the article that makes any kind of debatable assertion at all. Even though that sounds like a lot of work (and it is), the result will be article that I think is less likely to be disputed. Just my two cents. One article that makes heavy use of the new Wikipedia footnote format to use as an example is Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. Cla68 17:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

terms in translation

We read:

In the 2006 movie The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift, gaijin is defined as "outsider", although the Japanese word for "outsider" (someone who is not part of a group) is bugaisha (部外者).

I don't understand the point being made here. Putting aside the matter of what it means for a given word in one language to be "defined" as a given word in another (and perhaps "defined" here is simply a slip for "glossed"), why "although"?

An uncontroversial analogy: The standard Japanese term meaning "camera" is of course kamera. But if I'm asked to gloss the Japanese term shashinki in English, I'll say it means "camera". The existence (and indeed vastly greater use of) kamera in the sense of "camera" needn't in any way dissuade anyone from saying that shashinki too means "camera". -- Hoary 09:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Link deleted

The link I put in is far from being commercial. The website in question is the complete opposite from being commercial. The only reason we put it in there is because it provides a free and needed service to Gaijin here in Japan. Whether or not you like the link, and whether or not the link should be in Wikipedia, the reason for removing it is bogus... Of course its fine if Wikipedia is not the place to put links, for this my appologies.

While I am here, I have been running a NPO website www.japanese2day.com for some years now, and it looks like there are a lot of good people with a good understanding of Japanese, would you like to help with the project? Its again, 100% not commercial.

Perhaps you're right about the reason for removing the link being wrong. However, the link was described as NPO auction site for gaijin by gaijin, non commercial and always free. If this site is what it's claimed to be, its explanatory value for the term gaijin is only tangential. ¶ Actually I find it rather interesting, demonstrating as it does that the term gaijin is perceived as so dreadfully discriminatory and offensive that . . . er . . . that gaijin would flock to this site "for gaijin by gaijin". -- hoary gaijin 06:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, of course I have to agree.. Personally being a Gaijin in Japan.... I find the term nothing more then just a word to describe foreigners. Most Japanese will not use the term, but rather use gaikokujin, gaijin I hear more with the younger kids. My children however dont agree, and prefer to be called by their name by their class mates.

But gawsh, it must be offensive! I mean, everyone says it is, so it must be! (Actually I don't even know what such an assertion means, which is why I raised it here. The brilliance and perceptiveness of my question stunned everyone into silence.) -- hoary gaijin 12:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

you know what I like?

外人の方. Man, that one always gets to me. It's like they know they need to be polite, but they don't know how…

Also, by "like" I mean "dislike."

Shortened word

I'm back. This article is written by someone with only elementary understanding of Japanese language. Entire Japanese grammer and usage are (incorrectly) interpreted with explicit purpose of advancing POV that gaijin is projetive. And because some of these aregument are blatantly incorrect often originating from English language usage, this article is below encycropedia level. Can someone explain gaisha, gaishi, gaika, as welll as gaijin no kata. Are all these projetive or informal usage? I've had this debate for more than a decade but every explanation I was given were based on poor understanding of Japanese language, mostly based on projection of English into Japanese grammer. Vapour

OK, Mr. Advanced Understanding of Japanese, here's how Kojien (5th edition) defines 外人. Translations courtesy of mowph from E2.

1. 仲間以外の人。疎遠の人。 nakama igai no hito. soen no hito.

A person who is not a friend or of one's group. A distant person.

2. 敵視すべき人。 tekishi subeki hito.

A person who should be seen as hostile.

3. 外国人。異人。opp.邦人。 gaikokujin. ijin. hantaigo houjin.

A foreign person. A person of another culture. opposite: <<person-from-speaker's-country>> (ie. if speaker is a Japanese person, this word means "Japanese".)

Gaijin as a word predates gaikokujin by several centuries, and I'll post the reference here once I can locate it... Jpatokal

Aha! Again according to Kojien (3rd ed this time), the earliest use of meaning 1 dates back to Nijo Yoshimoto's Renri Hishou in 1349 (!), and the earliest use of meaning 2 is in Heike Monogatari (!!!), c. 1200. Pretty impressive pedigree for a word if you ask me! Jpatokal 14:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It is I who mentioned this old usage in the article. So "Aha!" is rather premature. And I don't rate my Japanese as advance by the standard of a native speaker. Kojien list every japanese words ever used from ancient time including ancient writing in Chinese. You fail to mention (or unaware of) the fact that 1 and 2 are old/ancient usage and no longer recognised by modern speaker of Japanese. The modern equivalent word is Yosomono (よそ者). That is why all the reference are from ancient/old text. If you want a reference from Heike monogatari, google "外人もなき所に兵具をととのへ". Gaijin, as in current Japanese, is exclusively used in reference to foreingers. The fact that you fail to spot something this obvious indicate that you don't　or can't read Japanese that much. I can also point out that the origin of the English word "foreinger" is a Latin word "Fontanus" (outside), which is probably passed on to English from French. However, I don't go around in the "foreinger" article, citing English equivelant of Kojien (most extensive version of Oxford English dictionary), and claim that "foreinger" means outsider "now" and not just someone with different nationality. To be honest, I don't think people pronounced 外人 as "gai-jin" back then. Unification of writing and spoken lanaugage (口文一致) was introduced after WWII.

It'd be nice if people didn't simply ignore Vapour's points in an effort to catch people in some sort of pedantic game. Second, the Kojien is NOT a historical dictionary, so stop relying on it as if it were one. If the history of the word is relevant to the discussion, then look it up in the 日本国語大辞典, which actually does try to trace the earliest and most recent usages of the word in its various historical meanings. If you had, you'd realize that there is a usage of 外人 in a kambun text from approximately 995 in the sense of a person from outside one's immediately family or clan. The most recent usage recorded for this sense is in fact from the Meiji Era, around the same time it started being used in the sense of "foreigner." The connection ought to be obvious. However, I wonder at whether this is at all relevant to the contemporary usage, which is why I didn't bother reproducing the 大辞典 entry. In English the word "gay" used to simply mean happy until it was used as a euphemism for "homosexual." Now, it is nearly impossible to use the word gay in it's original sense. My suspicion is something similar has happened with the word 外人, and that all of this (misguided and poorly executed) etymological research is much ado about nothing. --Uahsenaa 03:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, this is another reason I'm tired of this. I would consider the "context" argument to have some merit. On the other hand, all arguments I have seen so far in regard to Japanese grammer is incorrect. Some are based on such poor understanding of Japanese that I'm more curious about why someone at such an elementary level feel confident enough to make an argument. My Engrish is way more advance that their equivelant level in Japanese. But if a native speaker correct my Engrish, I don't insist that my Engrish is as valid as his/her English.

I'm a native speaker so I don't carry Japanese grammer books. I'm tired of countering unverified, unsourced original argument with my correct but still unsourced argument, which result in pointless debate about "the truth" of Japanese language. Vapour

I'd actually wager that wareware gaijin has a much better understanding of the term and its nuances than you do, because many of us contributors here have been at the receiving end for years. You can't explain the meanings of words just with grammar and logic: looking at the words alone, does it make any sense that in English "Japanese" is neutral while the obvious abbreviation "Jap" is, to some, deeply offensive? It's the history, the context, that matters.

But anyhow, here's a very simple question for you: if the word gaijin is as pure and non-offensive as you say, why is it on broadcasters' banned lists and subject to kotobagari? Jpatokal 11:25, 13 October 2006

To Vapour: Remember what I wrote to you a couple of weeks ago? You cannot win against these people. They just keep coming and coming and coming. They claim to be making the article NPOV, while in fact making sure it remains biased with the interpretation they want to foist on the world: it doesn't matter how the word is used today, by the Japanese among themselves; it matters how they, as outsiders (which, I believe, they remain in part because they refuse to learn Japanese as it is used rather than how they want it to be used), perceive Japanese. They offer, for example, statistics on how some foreigners perceive the word gaijin (you'll note that the statistics are not sourced, so we don't even know how big the sample was or how the panel was selected), yet provide none on how Japanese feel or what their intent is when they use the word. In other words: you're wasting your time here.
And for Jpatokal: since when is gaijin on the broadcasters' lists of banned words or subject to ktobagari? And even if it were, how does that serve as proof that the word is inherently offensive or unconditionally deragotory? Many of the words on those lists are there because broadcasters don't feel like fielding the complaints they would get from people who want to be offended, even when no offense is intended; the lists are as much a defensive measure as anything. Further, you ask of others to provide citations and such, but fail to do so yourself: many of the conclusive statements you have made are not in sources you cite. Kojien, for instance, may have a gloss for gaijin as an old word, but it offers no infomrations on whether the word, as used 800 or more years ago, was offensive, to say nothing of whether the word was in common use between then and the Meiji Period. This indicates that the conclusive statements you have made are not the conclusions of your sources, but only your own! I suggest you apply to your own contributions the same rigor you urge others to apply to theirs.
In any case, I believe it is valid to describe the problems and controversy associated with gaijin and its usage, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be a forum for carrying out the argument. Providing a balanced description is the real point of NPOV, so stop using NPOV is an excuse for couching your position in counterarguments designed to ensure that, in the end, you score the most points. I note that you, in addition to not supplying any statistics on how the Japanese view their usage of gaijin, you also fail to mention that their is no concensus among non-Japanese on the use of the word; indeed, you write as if there were.
To both of you: In short, where is any of the content of this article—especially the conclusive statements that attribute malice to users of the word gaijin—verifiable in third-party, scientifically researched sources? Jim_Lockhart 06:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

OK Jim, since you insist on making this personal, here's my personal view: I don't give a fuck if people call me a gaijin. I'm two meters tall and blond, I'll never fit in Japanese society, and I accept that. I also think people who get their panties in a twist about being called gaijin to be stupid, because 99% of the time there's no offensive intent. (There is a 1%: for example, if somebody who knows my name were to call me gaijin to my face, that would be a measured insult. But this would also apply if they said kono kinpatsu or any other physical attribute.)

What I find bizarre is Vapour's insistence that people who find the word "gaijin" objectionable are unequivocally "wrong". This is an encyclopedia: it's a fact that some people do find it offensive, so we're supposed to explain why they think so, and I think the article now does a decent job of listing the reasons. (I don't like the willy-nilly flinging about of "some", "many" etc any more than you do though -- but I didn't write it either.)

And it's also patently obvious that, at least in the far past, gaijin has been a term that "attributes malice". Look at Kojien: 敵視すべき人。"A person who should be considered an enemy." Enemy: "a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent." [1] If that's not malice, I don't know what is. Jpatokal 03:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Your questions deserve an answer, so I will reply to you in a few days—as soon as my workload allows. Best regards for the time being, Jim_Lockhart 22:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I see you've managed to turn this article into a irrefutable diatribe against the word gaijin, even by going so far as to dig up how old it is with this:

外人もなき所に兵具をととのへ
Gather the soldiers where there are no gaijin

The problem with this is that, in the time of Heike Monogatari and such, 外人 was pronounced tohito and referred to people from the countryside—hicks, if you will—and not to foreigners.

I hate to look like a chicken or something, but I find this sort of back-and-forth tiring, and I know I'm not going to change the mind of anyone whose made up his or her mind that gaijin is unconditionally derogatory (etc.) and typical of some sort of unique Japanese xenophobia.
I hope readers will take this article with the appropriate block of salt. Jim_Lockhart 01:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to sprinkle that salt into the article if you feel it's necessary. (I've noted the alternate pronunciation.) As said, I personally don't mind being called gaijin, but as an encyclopedia it's our job to explain why some people do — and how they back up those claims. Jpatokal 08:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough if that's your true aim. Maybe I'm just prejudiced, but it looks more to me like you've made a case for the notion being correct or unstified that "gaijin is an inherently derogatory term that somehow indicates a nationalist or racist streak in the Japanese psyche that, further, is somehow unique or especially virutent." I find that notion to itself be rather racist at worst and triumphalist at best, especially insofar as it is greatly ideologically informed.

This is not to say that there is not racism in Japan, or to imply that what racist exists is somehow excusable or justifiable, sinc it is neither. Perhaps this web page will give you some interesting insights as well. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 09:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Challenge

Please list whatever arguments one can come up with which say that gaijin is projetive. I'm happy to show that it is due to one's poor language skill in Japanese. Vapour

I think you mean pejorative. In any case, you will be wasting your time: This is not a matter of poor language skills, it is a matter of ideologically based preconceptions (色眼鏡による決め付け) rather than conclusions based on objective observation. Whatever you write will eventually get changed or be deleted, regardless of whether it is factually correct--unless, of course, you can back it up with citations from authoritative research results. Jim_Lockhart 04:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, hardly any contents of this article are sourced whatsoever. I could wipe large chunk of this article by invoking verifiability criteria. Still, I can see that many/some foreingesr in Japan are annoyed being IDed as "gaijin", though a practice of refering someone who is more ethinically alien as "foreign(er)" or "that Japanese/Pakistani/Arab guy" is common everywhere. Moreover, there are numerous examples of similar identity politics in English. For example, refering someone as "that disabled(blind/wheelchair) guy" (which is medically true) won't be politically correct. Moreover, if you go to Sociology or Cultural Studies department in the University, people do seriously argue that the word "disability" itself is not a factual statement because medical, scientific or biological perspective is relative to cultural, social or political perspective. Whatever the validity of such argument, I can accept that such argument exist. So I do not mind such POV being included in wikipedia or in this article. In fact, I personally added fair amount of content in this article regarding this issue.

However, this original research on Japanese grammar by someon with relatively poor proficiency in Japanese is not acceptable. Some statement become keigo by adding word with specific honorific, humble or polite meaning such as sama (様), kata(方) or san(さん). Conversely, some statement can become rude if you add word such as yaro (野郎). To argue that, according to keigo usage, gaijin is somewhat informal because it is shorter than gaikokujin is just plain ignorant of Japanese language. If you bother to check much older version of this article, it was fairly balanced though it was equally unsourced. Then someone named ExplodingBoy entirely rewrote the article on the basis of his (poor) understanding of keigo. I couldn't keep up with some silly edit war so I left. I'm back partly because I have some spare time at this moment. I can't be bothered with edit war this time. If this become an edit war about Japanese grammar, I will simply invoke verifiablity and start deleting all unsourced content from this article so I don't have to waste my time lecturing about Japanese language. Afterall, it's more encycropedic that way. Feel free to correct my edit about Japanese grammar. I don't complain if someone correct my Engrish. Vapour

Feel free to delete the keigo content. It's a silly and unneccessaly content. Vapour

Verifiability Revamp

Should we delete all unsourced contents from this article? This is likely to prevent any edit war taking place. There is no need to debate whether gaijin is or isn't rude here. Let someone else do that kind of thing elsewhere. If such debate appear in a verifiable source, we can report it here. I can start by adding . If no source turn up, the content will be deleted. Vapour

NPOV workout

So, I just spent way too much time giving the article a pretty good NPOV workout (I hope). I'm sure there's still stuff to adjust, but I think this is a fairly good -- and far more factual -- start. In particular, I think it's essential to emphasis that gaijin has multiple meanings, some of which predate the Meiji-era abbreviation. Jpatokal 15:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Gaijin "does" not have multiple meaning in usage. Kojien only list multiple usage of gaijin in "history". At any point in time, it had different but single meaning. When the word meant outsider, it didn't mean foreigner. It mean foreigner now and it no longer means outsider. If you read Japanese at even elementary level, you should know this. Kojien is for native speakers. So they expect readers to immediately spot that gaijin=outsider is not a current usage. Check Japanese-English dictionary for non-Japanese. It will not say Gaijin=Outsider. Such ancient usage is not only unnecessarily but also confusing to people who are learning Japanese. There is no instance in modern Japanese where gaijin is used to refer to just outsider who is not foreigner. Creative (incorrect) interpretation of verifiable source is still an original research. Vapour

Use in Pop Culture

I mean this term was on Tokyo Drift. Can we mention that?

henna gaijin

Not familiar with this being used to describe foreigners acting Japanese. In my experience, it was quite the opposite—to describe foreigners with unfamiliar and alien habits. adamrice 01:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that's why this term is noteworthy. A gaijin doing gaijin-y things is a perfectly normal gaijin; a gaijin doing Japanese things is a henna gaijin. Jpatokal 07:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see that you've never run into the term. Actually, I disagree with the definition given in the article and above: in my experience (and how Japanese people have described its use to me), hen-na gaijin is usually a near-superlative comment about language ability (and not so much as whether someone "mimics" Japanese behaviour; apologies to Adam, though I believe his interpretation is plausible—as we say in the translation business, "it's all context: you can't interpret the meaning of a word outside its immediate context"). In any case, the meaning is more like "funny gaijin" than "strange gaijin", but your take is correct to the extent that the term is used in reference to gaijin who have managed to master Japanese beyond the Nihongo, jōzu desu, ne and the hontō ni jōzu desu, ne levels (which basically correspond to "Oh, I see you've tried to learn some Japanese" and "Oh, I see you speak a few words of Japanese") and mean s, basically, "wow, you can get around OK in Japanese!" (If you really speak Japanese well, people generally don't make any comments, or they comment about how little accent you have or ask if you grew up in Japan.) Anyhow, have fun. Jim_Lockhart 09:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Project Assessment

Though this is quite obviously the type of subject which can be discussed to extensive length, and thus this article can never truly be considered "complete", I think it gives a very balanced and academic view of the origin, meaning, and issues surrounding the term. Some of the "citations needed" are misplaced, I think, and I should like to remove them, but I won't do so unilaterally. In particular, (1) do we really need to cite that it is common in Japan to refer to people as Honya-san and Nikuya-san? It's one of the most basic lessons anyone covers in learning the language - it's not exactly a controversial argument that one should need to cite a scholar for; if we were arguing that this derives from a particular practice or belief, then perhaps one would need to cite it to prove it's true. But anyone who speaks the language at any level knows this fact. (2) the idea that Japan is a discriminatory society - so is France, the United States, the UK... this is not something that should need citing. But, again, otherwise, you all have done a great job of keeping this objective, and on an academic scale. It would have been easy to write something based solely on one's personal experiences in Japan, opinions based on watching anime, etc, but instead this reads like a serious sociological analysis. Thank you. LordAmeth 23:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

pronunciation

Since this is an article on, yes, foreigners, would an IPA representation of the word for the ignorant be too much to ask ... ? 87.112.86.134 02:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Various Kojien Verifications

The Kojien entry for 外人（とひと） is as follows: 都のそとの田舎の人。また、いやしいこと。 万葉集（１６）「昔―あり、姓名詳らかならず」 A rough translation would be: "A person from the countryside. Or a vulgar or shabby person." I've edited the article to correspond with the citation. -- Exitmoose 01:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see now that they weren't using the entry for とひと at all. The Kojien entry for 外人（がいじん） has the following entries: ①仲間以外の人。疎遠な人。連理秘抄「‐など上手多からむ座にては」　②敵視すべき人。平家物語（１）「‐もなき所に兵具をととのへ」 This would seem to justify the original interpretation. But since this is under the entry for gaijin, it seems there's no justification for the claim that the word, in this context, was tohito, especially when the above mentioned Kojien entry has no mention of the quotes cited or the definitions used. I'll revert the article and then remove the mention of its "original" pronunciation -- Exitmoose 01:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The Kojien entry for 毛唐人（けとうじん） is as follows: "中国人・欧米人などを卑しめて呼ぶ語。..." or "A pejorative used to refer to Chinese or Westerners." I edited the article to conform with this definition. -- Exitmoose 01:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get "shabby" from いやしい? In any case, you people are seeking to justify your own prejudices about the current usage of gaijin on the basis of definitions of how it was used nearly a millenium ago. I think it would be better if you were to cite real (i.e., empirical, survey-based, descriptive) research on the word's usage in the current vernacular. "Real research" excludes tirades by parties with a political/social/ideological agenda. I also wonder why gaikokujin warrants a discrete article in Wikipedia when there are no comparable articles for words of similar character from other languages. Jim_Lockhart 02:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm just fact-checking the etymology of the word. Please don't make assumptions about my motivations. As for いやしい, I get my definition from the ジーニアス和英辞書, though there are plenty of others that verify this defintion, including the dictionary at www.goo.ne.jp The rest of your rant is irrelevent to my edits. -- Exitmoose 02:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for being ambiguous—I did not intend to be addressing Exitmoose personally (hence "you people"): my "rant" is directed at the article as a whole and the direction it always seems to take even after someone (not just me) goes to great lengths to remove the bias from it. My apologies for writing in a way that could plausibly be interpreted as a personal attack.

This apology does not, however, change my stance on the article's content or the interpretation of いやしい. As I have stated elsewhere on this talk page, the meaning of a given word is always informed by the context it appears in. In this case, in the Kojien, we have いやしい in context with 田舎, and the definition is describing 外人 as used in the Nara/Heian periods (about a thousand years ago). In other words, back then it referred to someone from "outside the (capital) city"—in those days, someone who was commonly looked upon by the literary classes as a country bumpkin, of low status, uncultured; "low status" and "uncultured" or unsophisticated are the root meanings of いやしい, thus いやしい means "shabby" in that sense. I therefore believe that this part of Kojien's definition is basically irrelevant to how gaijin is used today; further, whether the character string 外人 was pronounced gaijin or tohito is moot: first, Japanese dictionaries do not always make such distinctions because they assume most of their users (readers) will already know which pronunciation to use in a given context; and second, most people who read waka would prefer the tohito because the appearance of kango in waka is a recent (post-Edo period) phenomenon.

This article is still largely informed by content contributed by editors with a political motive—i.e., characterizing the Japanese as somehow more racist or foreigner-hostile than 1) they really are, and 2) other peoples who have highly homogeneous societies are. I find such selection of the Japanese for this type of criticism to be somewhat racist in itself: where are the articles on similar phenomenon among other peoples who at least claim a high degree of homogeneity or stress its importance to their national or ethnic identity (say, the Koreans)? If there are already such articles, why are there no links to them from this one? These comments and questions are not directed at any particular contributor, but rather to all contributors to this article. Jim_Lockhart 06:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your interpretation of いやしい in this context, though the article was reverted, so it's sort of a moot point, I suppose. As for the more general complaints, I also agree that there's too much speculation and not enough hard evidence. Access to the Japanese dictionary you cited above would be nice, but I, unfortunately can't get my hands on one. While I think the etymology of the word has a place in the article (after all, it provides the very context the word is used in today), and yet I think we can trust the readers to be able to seperate out the archaic meaning from its more contemporary usage. In any case, perhaps a more concerted effort needs to be made to cite sources. Much of the information in this article is simply assumed as common knowledge, which I don't think can be done. -- Exitmoose 07:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to be overly argumentive, but part of my point is that gaijin=foreigners and gaijin=tohito, country bumpkin (etc.) are not really the same word. The former is a shortform for gaikokujin, whereas the latter is an archaic word used in a different era that just happens to look like the former. For instance, the entry for gaijin in the Shōgakukan kogo Daijiten (小学館　古語大辞典) (Shogakukan, 1983 and 1994; ISBN4-09-501231-5) makes no mention of foreigners—or even country folk, for that matter (ぐゎいじん is the contemporary orthography). This is evidence that including the Nara—Heian period word in the etymology of contemporary gaijin, though plausible, is actually misleading. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 14:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I was the editor who originally asked for the few cited facts presented in this article to be cross-checked and verified. I'm pleased that Exitmoose went to the trouble of checking some of them. Thank you. That said, I completely agree with Jim Lockhart that the quality of this article is very disappointing. There are virtually no reputable sources cited in several sections other than a few questionable contributions as "external links" by Arudou Debito et al. (people who clearly have a political agenda), and as such, large sections should be deleted soon. The article is not encyclopedia quality, especially in the "Controversy" section where no citations are presented at all. (NB: I've looked in vain for citations in electronic libraries and internet databases and I can't find any verifiable sources to support them.) Surely this is not a good thing as it suggests original research (something Wikipedia policy explicitly forbids). What do other editors think? —— J Readings 23:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Kojien entry for 南蛮 is as follows: 　（南方の野蛮人の意）...　②室町末期から江戸時代にかけて、シャム・ルソン・ジャワその他南洋諸島の称。また、その他を経由して渡来した西欧の人や品物。また、（多く他の語に冠して）珍奇・異風なもの。　③特に、オランダを紅毛というのに対して、ポルトガル・スペインをいい、キリシタンと同じ意に用いられた語。 or "(meaning southern barbarians) ... 2 From the end of the Muromachi Period through the Edo Period, a name for various archipelagos in the South Seas such as Siam, Luzon, and Java. Also, Westerners and associated goods that reached Japan by way of those areas. Also, (encompassing a number of other words) curious or unusual things. 3 Especially, in contrast to the Dutch who were called koumou, a name for Portuguese and Spanish, which came to used to describe early Christians in Japan." Perhaps not the best translation in the world, but I think it justifies the statements made in the article. -- Exitmoose 07:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The Kojien entry for 紅毛 is as follows: ... ②（ポルトガル・スペインを南蛮というのに対して）江戸時代、オランダ国またオランダ人の称。紅夷（こうい）。 or "2 (as opposed to the Portuguese and Spanish, who were called nanban) A name for Holland and Dutch people. See Koui." The entry for 紅夷 reads:（紅毛の夷人の意）江戸時代、欧米人を蔑んで呼んだ語。 or "(meaning red-haired foreigners (note: "foreigners" here is in the same sense as "nanban" above)) A derogatory term from the Edo period for Western people." I hate relying on the Kojien so much, but this also appears to justify the statements in the article. However, there's no mention of the terms' use in Singapore. In any case, I think how the word 紅毛 is used in Singapore is totally irrelevent to past words for foreigner in Japan. The link to the Singaporean article as well as the statement about how this word (even granting that it's the same word, which is a whole other ball of wax) should be removed. -- Exitmoose 07:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits, Exitmoose. I was reviewing the guidelines on what Wikipedia should and should not be. What's beginning to concern me (and probably others) is guideline number 1.2, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary." My concern is that we cannot find any other publicly verifiable sources for these assertions outside of the Kojien. I reviewed some online academic literature that deal with linguistics today. I couldn't find anything in English (or Japanese) that we can use here as a cross-reference for many/most of these assertions. Like you, I don't like to rely on the Kojien for everything. Also, the "Usage" and "Controversy" sections still don't have any reputable third-party sources to any of the asserted opinions, save one or two small ones that I added myself (excluding the broadcasting guidelines). This is a serious problem. I'll keep looking. —— J Readings 13:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I do think the Kojien has its place, but you'd think it'd be easier to find some serious academic work on the subject in English. I'm a little ambivalent about the "one source" tag applying to what essentially is a dictionary (perhaps the most well-grounded source around), but I can see the need for it. In any case, I moved the tag to the appropriate section. Hopefully, we can find something else, but it seems so many of the articles out there actually cite Wikipedia, making it hard not to turn the whole thing into one big circle. -- Exitmoose 01:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Providing justification for "ihoujin" and "naikokujin/gaikokujin" claims

I've been racking my brains trying to find some good sources to back these claims up, both of which strike me as likely. But as expected, it's been difficult finding a source that straightforwardly says "This is the way this word was used." However, I have found some sources that imply what is claimed. For instance http://www.keytokyo.org/community/learning/mm/mm05-02.pdf deals with how Koreans living in Japan were stripped of their citizenship. It has a line that implies that Koreans were labelled 内国人 during the War, but it doesn't at all deal with the etymology of the term. http://beforestforever.blogspot.com/2005_06_12_beforestforever_archive.html might also be useful in verifying the "naikokujin/gaikokujin" claim. The "ihoujin" claim has been just as difficult. Both these claims are fairly factual claims, so unless they can be verified, perhaps they should be removed from the article. -- Exitmoose 07:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the following sentence until an editor can provide publicly verifiable source(s) for the assertion. "When the Tokugawa shogunate was forced to open Japan to foreign contact, Westerners were commonly referred to as ijin (異人, "different people"), a shortened form of ikokujin (異国人, "different country people") or ihōjin (異邦人, "different motherland people"), terms previously used for Japanese from different feudal (that is, foreign) states." It's possible some Japanese may have used these terms for Westerners/foreigners, but the word "commonly" inserted into the sentence without a citation makes me think it belongs on the talk page for now. J Readings 10:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Categories

I deleted "ethnic slurs" and "pejorative terms for people" from this article as there is no publicly verifiable information from reputable sources determining the word gaijin to fall under these two categories. Leaving it in place would violate NPOV. In fact, I think that it's appropriate to start deleting large sections of this article for original research and unsourced assertions as a reasonable amount of time has passed since the notice was first posted. —— J Readings 03:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The entire "Controversy" section violates NOR. I'd be inclined to agree with many of the statements there, but the fact that not a single outside source has been introduced in the last few months is telling. The "Usage" section, while also devoid of sources, is a bit more benign. "Controversy" should be radically altered or removed entirely. -- Exitmoose 04:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

External links

I deleted the hyperlink entitled "The Case for 'Gaijin as a Racist Word.'" It violates NOR, section 2.1 (reliable sources) and 6.1 (verifiability). Wikipedia policy states that "reliable sources" are "books and journals published by university presses; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals published by known publishing houses...Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable." Debito.org is a self-described personal homepage, not an electronic journal or newspaper. But far more importantly (and the real reason it should be deleted), the link violates 6.1 (verifiability) in that it was originally an e-mail sent to a few chat fora, and offers no publicly verifiable sources from accredited journals or sources that have a stated vetting process. Wikipedia policy prohibits personal blogs to be used as source of reliable information. Therefore, I'm removing it.

The other three links have methodology problems with respect to the polling data (e.g., how large was the sample size?), but they're at least sourced from online newspapers, so I'm leaving them for now. —— J Readings 01:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the Debito material has room in the article as long as the material being cited is from his work in the "Japan Times". I know he's written many articles on the subject for the "Zeitgeist" section, if the article is dealing with the current usage of the word, then Debito is a reasonably reliable source. There's also his book, which I think could be a good source of information. That said, I agree that personal emails posted on a website probably don't rise to the level of citable material. -- Exitmoose 01:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you guys are putting a lot of work into this, and I think it's getting better. I hope you'll take my criticisms in that context.

Does the "Debito material" cite any sources? What I've read of work published by "Debito" is usually unreliably sourced, when sourced at all. (I must admit that I find most of it so mind-numbing that I haven't read a terribly lot of it.) My point is that just because it's published (e.g., in The Japan Times) doesn't mean it's reliable information. His book (and website) has been frequently debunked in numerous forums where such matters are discussed. Debito and his campaigns deserve mention, but I don't think his works should be used as sources for describing gaijin and the situation surrounding it.

Debito aside, I've just checked the web page cited as the source for the following paragraph:

The word gaijin is classified as "racial discrimination" (人種差別) and included on a common list of prohibited words used by Japanese broadcasters and publishers[5]. The list recommends the use of gaikokujin instead. However, adherence to these lists is voluntary, and its contents are often criticized as excessively cautious (see kotobagari). Gaijin is not listed on the Broadcasting Code master list of prohibited words that all TV and radio broadcasters adhere to.

On reading the page and list, however, I notice that it does not claim gaijin is a sabetsu yōgo. The owner of the page also writes that the page is an unofficial list, one he initially drew up for a school project but never used, and that the list contains "sabetsugo and other words that certain persons could take offence at, as well as some that, while not discriminatory in normal usage, could be offensive depending on the context and therefore require care in their usage." That's a far cry from "classifying [gaijin] as 'racial[ly] discriminat[ory]'"! The wording "'racial discrimination' (人種差別)" don't even appear on the page.

The first two paragraphs under the Controversy heading are another problem spot. In addition to being unsourced, they look like pure speculation and are pendantic. Who are "the two sides," and where did they come to the agreement about the obsoleteness of the ancient word and such? I'm not asking this because I don't know the answer, but rather because I wonder whether readers who haven't participated in discussions here will.

Further, if "the two sides" agree that the old word/definition is obsolete, then why is it (the old word, as cited in Heike Monogatari) worthy of mention? Fact is, all the material about the old words (and how Chinese words like 紅毛人 are or were once used—not that Ch:手紙 and Jp:手紙 both look the same but are quite different) is conflated speculation that amounts to little more than folk etymology. It is misleading and should go.

In a similar vein, what is the purpose of the "literal" renderings of these words—those such as "outside country (foreign) person" for 外国人 and "outside person" for 外人? I believe these literal renderings, as they stand, are potentially misleading and POV, because they appear (given the context most of this article seems to have been written in) to stress the "outside" component as if it somehow evinced a particularly strong insularity. 外国人 should be parsed 外国 (other country, country outside [one's] own) + 人 (person), hence "foreigner." This structure, by the way, is hardly unusual in other languages: Ausland, Ausländer (D); buitenland, buitenlander (NL); utland, utlänner (S).

I think it's fine to be impassioned about a subject you (generic you) write about, but you also have to be sure you don't loose sight of reality. Although I appreciate all the work fellow contributors are putting into this, a lot of this article is informed more by passion than fact. It's too heavy on argument and attempts at persuasion and too light on arm's length descriptions. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 16:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Folk etymology

Jim Lockhart's interesting point that 外人 may have two distinct etymologies reminds me of the David Howard incident in January 15, 1999. Wikipedia records a brief entry of the incident under the title Niggardly. Some people confused the word "niggardly" to have the same etymology as the racial epithet "nigger" when, in fact, the etymologies were completely different. It's something to consider if we want to avoid a repeat of that issue.

For now, let me offer a compromise. We can post a note requesting further cross-reference citations to support the material presented in that section for (say) a couple months, or whatever time-period seems reasonable to other editors who seriously want to improve this article. If no one can come up with a reliable third-party source from an academic publisher that corroborates the Kojien entries on 外人, we should delete the whole section until such time as it can be cross-referenced. Indeed, Wikipedia seems to have this problem in mind when the started up the "Fact and Reference Checking" project. What do other editors think? Is that a reasonable compromise? —— J Readings 00:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. I can't help but feel it'd be a shame to lose so much material, but especially an article as politically charged as this one needs multiple sources. And I'm sure they're out there, because we can all attest that there are no shortage of expats and Japanese debating the meaning of the "g-word". (wry smile) -- Exitmoose 01:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, too. In the past, I've gone in to heavily rewrite the article, but always felt bad about unilaterally excising so much material; yet it angered me that my work would also quickly be reworked to reflect precisely the views I was trying to neutralize. So in the spirit of Exitmoose's comment ("no shortage of expats ... debating the meaning"), I hope the article will merely describe, rather than seek to engage in, that debate. <wry smile back at you!> Jim_Lockhart 01:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the literal decomposition of the word 外人, I am not convinced it can be presented SOLELY (and therefore factually) as "Outside + Person" without cross-referenced verifiable sources showing that it is a NPOV statement devoid of folk etymology or a political agenda (c.f. the current political agendas behind the decomposition of womyn and humyn). Now, before anyone gets upset, please try to understand how I arrived at this request for either a verifiable source or a re-write; I state this with nothing but good intentions. First, there is no citation (let alone cross-reference) directing the reader to a third-party academic source quoting the decomposition literally as such. This is not to say that one might not exist. If there are (preferably) two sources that literally describe this rendering, by all means, cite them for examination. Second, some people naturally assume that the literal meaning must be translated into English using this description because that's the popular zeitgeist on the internet——even some journalists quickly decompose the word 外人 as "outside person." But is ("Outside + Person") a descriptive fact from a third-party source literally instructing us that this is an unquestionable fact of the Japanese language? To illustrate the problem, see what happens if we follow a selective bias when using Nelson's Japanese-English Character Dictionary (Tuttle, Second Revised Edition). The character 外 (from the Chinese) can obviously mean "outside, without, beside, beyond the scope of" in addition to its Japanese renderings, such as hazureru meaning "be off, come off, be dislocated, be disconnected, be off the hook (a phone), be unbuttoned, be unzipped." Now, here's where it gets interesting: how many editors would accept the same introductory sentence to read the following: "Gaijin (外人) contains only the character for hazureru (外, unzipped/unhinged) and hito (人, person), and hence literally means "unhinged person" or "unbuttoned person"? I doubt that many editors would find that to be a credible statement of fact without a citation. Fact is, the current sentence is a subtle attempt at POV without presenting the reader with facts. I agree with Jim Lockhart; it needs to be either re-written for NPOV or cited as an unquestionable statement of fact. ——J Readings 03:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've agreed with most of your points, but this is one I can't understand. The fact is that at some level, a fact becomes so obvious and general in nature as to defy citation. Any number of articles on Japanese things provide literal translations, which are neither "original research" in any normal sense of the word nor posess a "point of view". Now, whether the literal meaning of 外人 has a purpose in the article is another matter. Perhaps it's simply irrelevent (something I'd be mildly ambivalent about). But 外 does mean "outside" and 人 means "person". If you insist that such a fact be appropriately cited, then any article would find itself in a sea of superflous superscript. In any case, The American Heritage Dictionary contains the exact same literal meaning. We could add another dictionary entry to the reference list, but I think something as elementary as the literal definition of a word doesn't need citation. -- Exitmoose 03:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. 外 also means "unzipped," "unhinged," "unbuttoned," etc. Context means everything in the world of professional translation. The point is that I don't think many people would accept the literal definition of "unhinged or unbuttoned person" because the English connotation suggests something that the original Japanese word doesn't even consider: namely, a mentally unbalanced person. Selectively choosing which English definitions of the characters to emphasize over other equally plausible constructs (e.g., 外国 (other country, country outside [one's] own) + 人 (person)) in the introductory sentence is potentially misleading and, in my opinion, POV. Also, Wikipedia seems to encourage cross-referencing for its articles in order to avoid many of the criticisms of this resource, including (but not limited to) reliability. They literally request that each sentence ideally be cited and cross-referenced. Is it wrong? I'm not sure I object, especially when some people inadvertently want to directly debate issues on Wikipedia rather than simply describe the known facts in a detached manner. As a small aside, the rendering of 外 in The American Heritage Dictionary' also notes that it can literally mean "foreign", not just "outside," which would be consistent with most English and Japanese dictionary definitions of the word as just meaning "foreigner" or "foreign national." —— J Readings 04:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Context is important, and that's precisely why using "unzipped" would be absurd, and "outside" is perfectly reasonable. Fair enough, AHD mentions "foreign" as well (probably as an abbreviation for 外国), and this could be added to the article. On the other hand ,the sentence containing 外国人 states almost precisely what you request. Exactly as the article states, 外, 国, and 人 are the characters of that word, and the article is precisely correct about their meanings. I don't see the lack of neutrality in that. What if we remove the POV-tag from the first statement and change the literal meaning of 外人 to "outside (foreign) person"? -- Exitmoose 05:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Exitmoose, I have problems with the wording of these two sentences (especially the latter sentence) given all of the dictionary (English and Japanese) explanations that I consulted on this matter, as well as their location within the article. Let me get back to you in a couple days after my workload subsides. Hopefully, I can outline my concerns better. Thanks for your patience. J Readings 23:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Exitmoose may be right, but please remember my stance: the etymologies are almost useless for understanding the word's vernacular meaning—something I think most linguists (not speakers of languages other than their native, but people who study the evolution and function of language) will tell you. It is interesting—neigh, even fascinating—to see how other peoples put semantic elements together to form new words; but it is dangerous (as well as politically loaded) to make assumptions or assertions about the values they are therefore attaching to those words. And this is especially so when the analysis is being made in another language with its own value-baggage. Fact is, 外人 is a contraction of 外国人, so breaking it down into 外 and 人 is, in addition to being a mistaken parsing, a false assumption: One cannot expect accurate conclusions built on false assumptions.

The semantic elements here are not "outside + person," but "other country + person". Linguists will also tell you that it is usually futile and almost always misleading to the break down the semantic elements of idiom into smaller pieces to understand them, because it is the meaning of the semantic unit, and not its constituent parts, that is significant. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 04:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I see the point you're making. I've edited the article to remove discussion of individual kanji, and mentioned gaijin as a "common abbreviation of gaikokujin". -- Exitmoose 06:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits and the "controversy" section

The most recent revisions by Sweetsntreats might have their place, but I think it's quite unfair to delete large sections of the article on the basis of it being uncited only to add more uncited material. The material removed from the article might be editorial in nature, but that's no reason to replace it with editorial material from another perspective. I'm rapidly coming to the belief that the "Controversy" section is hopelessly POV and a lightning rod for editors that want to elevate their own view. I'm in favor of moving the entire section to the talk page until proper citation can be found. -- Exitmoose 00:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Today is 7 February. On 25 February, two months will have officially passed since the notice was first posted. I sympathize with Exitmoose's points about the "Controversy" section being a magnet for other POV material, but I think that, in the interest of fairness, we need to run out the clock on this problem. It's only a couple more weeks. I'm still looking myself (and I found some interesting things to be used for "Usage" section), but if we can't produce any citable material for the "Controversy" section by that time, we should delete it. If other editors object they can always argue their case in front of the Wikipedia administrators. To be honest, I would be very interested to see how they react to this case. -- J Readings 00:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. -- Exitmoose 00:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. (Its being a magnet has been part of my thinking all along; it just never dawned on me to express it that way!) Jim_Lockhart 00:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with that. As I stated on my talk page, I believe the entire Controversy section should be summed up in one sentence: "There is controversy surrounding the possible or perceived racial implications of this word," That said, I don't mind running out the clock. However. is "the interest of fairness" a good reason to leave POV material available in an encyclopedia? Fairness to whom? Maybe, in the interest of accuracy, it should all be deleted until citation can be provided. Then points can be added back in as they are verified. Sweetsntreats 03:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Smackbot

Small concern: I'm wondering if we need to change the dates on the "fact" tags. An automated bot was trolling by and tagged them all "February 2007," when in actual fact, some (most) of these tags were put in place well before that (e.g., December 2006). What should we do? Correct them or leave them alone? J Readings 02:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Corrected them. -- Exitmoose 01:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. -- J Readings 01:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Hakujin"

Hakujin redirects here, but there is no mention of the term on the page. I'm wondering what we should do about that. I know that "hakujin" is a calque (apparently) of "white person". But do we find some way to put that in the article, or do we redirect "Hakujin" to Caucasian race, or what? - furrykef (Talk at me) 05:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"Controvesy" section: your time is up

According to the "gaijin" talk page archives, the following editors requested that most/all of the material in this controversial article contain publicly verifiable third-party sources: User:Ashibaka, User:Yoji Hajime, User: 61.27.54.213, User:Vapour, User:Hoary, User:BrianSmithson, User:ShizuokaSensei, User:Cla68, User:JALockhart, User:Exitmoose, User:J_Readings, and User:Sweetsntreats.

Finally, on 25 December 2006, and consistent with WP guidelines, we added section tags requesting that all questionable assertions to the “Controversy” and “Usage” sections be sourced. The general consensus was that two months was sufficient time for the authors of these various contributions to find reliable sources for their claims. Nothing was forthcoming.

Seeing that today is 25 February 2007, the section will obviously be deleted now. The question is how. I vote that we remove the “Controversy” section from the article to the discussion page, unless other editors think that the section should be completely deleted from WP without a trace. Thoughts? -- J Readings 07:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Move to discussion page. Some of the material might be useful as a base for research. Section should definitely be moved from article page, however. -- Exitmoose 23:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Archived Controversy Section

Due to its long history and its multiple meanings, the use of the word gaijin is often a source of controversy. Calling foreigners "enemies", as implied by the meaning used in Heike Monogatari, would clearly be offensive, while merely abbreviating the longer formal term gaikokujin would not be.

Both sides agree that the ancient meanings of gaijin as simply (non-foreign) "outsider" or "enemy" are obsolete and not used in modern Japanese. Those who think gaijin is non-offensive argue that the current word is purely a contraction and that these meanings have been lost entirely, while others argue that the original pejorative connotation is still attached to the modern meaning of the word.

Some foreigners object to gaijin on the basis of it being a contraction similar to the historically hostile "Jap" in English. However, in Japanese, shortening long words is common in both written and colloquial usage, and there are many abbreviations which use gai in reference to subjects or objects that come from outside Japan: gaisha (外車) from gaikokusha (外国車 "foreign car"), gaiatsu (外圧) from gaikoku-atsuryoku (外国圧力 "foreign pressure"), gaigo (外語) from gaikoku-gengo (外国言語, "foreign language"), etc. There are also many other words that use "gai" to simply refer to outside in general: (外食）gaishoku "eating out", (外面) gaimen "outer surface" or "appearance". These are hardly considered offensive.

Some non-Japanese also object to the use of gaijin as a form of address (as in gaijin-san). It is common in the Japanese language to address others by title rather than by name. For example, customers are customarily addressed as O-kyaku-sama (a elevated, honorific form of "customer"); a person who works in a bookshop would be addressed as Honya-san ("Mr. Bookseller"); a butcher would be addressed as Nikuya-san ("Miss Butcher"), and so on.

Some object to the term based on a literal reading of the kanji with which it is written. While Japanese words, like English ones, are most often more than the sum of their parts, and while the etymology of foreigner is in fact similar (coming from the Latin foranus, meaning "on the outside"), it is felt by some that the term is overused in the Japanese context, whereas an English speaker might prefer other terms in certain situations. Specifically, since even long-term ex-pats in Japan are referred to as gaijin, some foreigners feel that the word symbolizes their cultural and social exclusion from the Japanese community and the reluctance of some Japanese to accept people of non-Japanese ethnicity and of the government to acknowledge persons of non-Japanese ethnicity as citizens even if they are born in Japan. However, for example, a person from Japan who is a long-term resident of Canada would still be called "Japanese" if one was not a Canadian citizen and only referred to as "Japanese-Canadian" or "of Japanese descent," or even simply "Canadian" after becoming a citizen.

Some English speakers point out that in English the term "foreigner" or worse, "alien," can have negative implications in certain contexts. For example, it would usually be considered rude to refer to someone as "the foreign man," or to describe someone as being "foreign," particularly when that person is a long-term resident of the country. It is pointed out that such phrasing is sometimes chosen for reasons of racism. However, in Japanese society this is not necessarily the case. Words are generally taken more literally and it is felt by most Japanese that referring to someone as "gaijin" is a simple statement of the fact that they are non-Japanese and not necessarily used derogatorily.

It should be noted that cultural references of the use of the word "gaijin" in Western culture (e.g. The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift) are presented from an American sensibility (screenplay writer: Chris Morgan). Therefore, they may not represent the true use and meaning of the word. Similarly, any word said with the appropriate sarcasm could be perceived as offensive.