Report from Greater Tokyo

I have reached the conclusion that the staff in public transport companies are not selected for their intelligence. I present for you two examples.

Example One

I was travelling on a bus, the first time on this particular route. This route being unfamiliar, I asked the driver if it went to such and such a place, to which he answered yes. So I got in and asked him to tell me when it got there.

Now, the bus has automated announcements come up on the announcer whenever it arrives at a stop, so there wasn't any need for the driver to actually say anything to me. So, when the announcement came up saying my stop, I got up, went to the driver, and said (in Japanese) this is my stop. he nodded. And carried on driving.

And carried on driving.

So when it reaches the next stop, I ask him what's up. He petulantly says I didn't ring the bell. In all fairness to him, this is true; I did not ring the bell. But from context (asking him if it stops there, going to the exit door by the driver when the announcement came, and saying that was my stop) it would take a special kind of idiot not to draw a certain conclusion that I might want to get out there.

Example Two

I was Shinjuku station, and I needed to go to Omiya, which is to the north. So I ask the station guy which platform I need, and he says, with considerable certainty, platform ten and change trains, as there isn't a direct train. So I go there. And the signs there say all trains go to Hachioji, which is a considerable distance to the west, and completely in the wrong direction.

Naturally, I think he must have made a mistake, so I go back and ask him again. He takes the time to look in his big book of trains before repeating, this time pointing out that I must change trains at Tachigawa station. So off I go back to platform ten, and lo and behold a train is pulling in at that moment. I get in the train.

Now, Japanese trains generally have a map inside showing the train route and the routes of a few train lines on connecting stations. And the map in this train does indeed show Tachigawa station, and shows quite clearly that Omiya does not connect to Tachigawa. I jump out moments before the doors close.

And go back to the station guy. At this point, he has given me the same information twice, and there is no way he can change his answer without losing face. So asking him about Omiya would be futile. So instead I ask him about Akabane station, which is on the same line towards Omiya.

His reply? It's on platform one. And that is indeed correct. And the train not only stops at Akabane, but goes on to Omiya, which if you'll recall, had no direct trains according to station guy.

There's a language school that wants to give me a job, but because they can only offer part time work, they won't sponsor a visa. And because it is technically outside the scope of my current visa, I need a certain standard letter signed off by my previous employer who originally sponsored my current visa. And it's their policy not to sign off such letters. They're happy to give me a glowing reference, they just won't make it possible for me to work legally. Catch-22.

So today was meant to be my very first tango class. I cycle all the way there, only to discover that I put all my cash in my other coat. I ask for directions to the nearest branch of my bank, and I'm basically directed back home. Seems that despite being on the edge of the nation's biggest entertainment district, the nearest bank is about a mile and a half away. never let it be said that Japanese banks are convenient. And by the time I get money out, the class is already half over. not really worth going to it today. Maybe next week it'll finally start.

Here is the original music version of that song. It's going through my head all the time these days. And who thought nothing ever came out of moldova?

Seems that song is in Romanian. Here are the original lyrics, along with an English translation.

Click and enjoy.

• Maiyaa 1
• Maiyaa 2
• Maiyaa 3
• Maiyaa 4

Unrelated, but still fun...

• Shinbashi
  
• Princess Azumanga

I was reading this book written for managers who want to get ahead. All very routine stuff, but one nice piece of advice stuck out; watch TV for the entertainment programmes. The reasoning is that everyone else does, and so it immediately gives two people from different areas a common ground for casual conversation.

But then I thought; before mass media and mass entertainment, what did long distance travellers talk about? Were they loners, doomed to not chatting with their hosts? Did they use the old stand-by and talk about the weather? Did they bring news from afar? I suspect the latter. In this age of instant news, we no longer need rely on travellers' tales of distant lands for the big picture; we get our news from TV.

But why must we rely also on the media for our casual conversation, for our daily immersion into the community? Are travellers' tales of personal exploits and the 'little picture' not of interest? I think this collapse of community conversation and talk of real people is a prime cause of reverse culture shock that travellers experience after they come back from a long trip abroad.

Whither travellers' tales?

This isn't my writing. This was written by someone going by the name of Polish Cavalry on the Megatokyo forums. But people said it was well-written, and he said go ahead and preserve it for posterity, so here it is.

This will probably be a bit long, so please bear with me.

I am one of the lefty euros, although I think generally I can make a difference between a government and a people. I dislike Chirac and Berlusconi and Blair, but do not hate French, Italians or Brits because of that. Likewise, I dislike Bush, but do not hate Americans because of that.

Ok, back to the topic. Why is there a rift between Europe and the US? Why do we have such a hard time understanding each other? I think the problem is very cultural and has its basis in the history and the development of democracy in Europe and the US. I'll try to summarise in a few points.

Please excuse me if my conclusions on US culture is wrong - I have visited the US twice and spent time with two regular US families, of which one was what I would describe as fundamentalist christian and staunchly conservative (they were very nice though).

1. Religion.

In the US, churches and religious groups are major players in politics - as lobbyists, as political organisations or just as an organised way to get an opinion out. Many Americans are not organised in groups other than in their churches, and thus the church become the only way to get organised opinions out, if you understand what I mean.

Thus religion is a real presence in US politics. It would probably be hard for an atheist to be elected to office in the US. Why is this allowed? The US was formed with religious freedom and many of the original colonists and then immigrants came to the US because of that. In the US, religion is perhaps a bit of a symbol for the freedom-seeking individual, bible in one hand and shovel in the other building his future in the new world.

In Europe, religion always was the tool for the ruling class. Be it catholic, orthodox, calvinist or lutheran, the church was controlled to a large extent by the rulers and only told the people what the rulers wanted them to hear. When Europe started to become democratic, the church tried, as the tool of the old rulers, keep the old order - "The King rules with the grace of God" etc - you get the idea. In many places in Europe, the church and religion became the symbol of oppresion and injustice, lies and deception and people turned away from religion to a large extent - more in northern Europe than in souther, catholic, Europe, but still. For example, a politician mentioning the will of God or quoting the bible would be politically dead in my country - he would be completely unelectable.

When US politicians speak of religion, the reaction in the US might be a warm fuzzy feeling of christian ideals and community, while in Europe, it will send cold chills of fear down the spines of people - totalitarian governments and religious oppresion are not even a hundred years away in Europe.

2. State.

In Europe, state-run business has always been a part of the normal procedure. It may be the old-style Bismarck conservativism that favoured interventionism and a state-run industry for the direct needs and interests of the nation (for example arms) or the socialist ideas of the state being a protection for the little man against the unhindered and indifferent capitalism. Throughout the history of Europe, there are many examples of a strong state behing able to protect the people. It may be the French remembering how humiliated they were during the hundred year's war when a weak and very feudal France was unable to stand up against a poorer, less populated but much more centralised England. It might be Germans remembering how they were always the sacrificable pawns at the chessboard of grand politics before they were united in one strong state, it might be the Poles remembering the great confusion as every noble had a veto right in the Sejm (their parliament) during the 1600s and corruption, abusive feudal lords and enemy forces running rampant all over them. In Europe, with a histyroy of feudalism and nobility, a strong state has been the guarantee of peace, law, order and prosperity, and to not be humiliated. The basic European has a lot of faith in the government and the state to protect his interests and take care of him, protect him from humiliation and, anarchy, corruption and abuse.

In the US, a nation founded upon distrust for a centralised government and with a history of every man for himself as the west was colonised and as the state has never been really effiecent in dealing with the less fortunate sides of capitalism (sharks, monopolists etc), the state is viewed with suspicion and distrust. The US have no history of weakness or humiliation due to infighting and greed and/or corruption among the rulers and will not see the centralised state as a guarantee for the safety of the common man as many Europeans do. The US citizen will only see the bad parts of the state - taking taxes, enforcing rules, poking in everyones business.

Europeans do not understand how the Americans can distrust their government so,and Americans cannot understand how Europeans can constantly demand their state to act, protect them.

3. Unions

In Europe, unions were at the barricades when democracy was forced upon the old rulers. If it were not for the unions, democracy and freedom might have been far away in many European nations. The general European trust and like their union, seeing it as the organisation that can protect them on a daily basis. Many Europeans will view the corporation's and the worker's interests as opposite - the corporation wants to get as much labour as cheaply as possible and while the worker wants to give as little labour as expensive as possible. The union is for the European a proud carrier of people's rights.

In the US, on the other hand, unions were late to catch on - freedom already existed when the unions came into existance. And they were quickly infiltrated by organised crime or became corruptied, and many Americans will view the union as a corrupt, buearocratic or criminal entity only designed to allow lazy workers to do nothing but get lots of money.

4. Confrontation

In the US, confrontation is held high in regard. When you know you are right, you should stand your ground and not give in, a trait popularised in many hollywood movies and US TV-series. Compromise is often viewed as weak, cowardice, flip-flopping or even corrupt. I don't really know why this is the case, but I feel it is important.

While in Europe, compromise and agreement is seen as a good way to resolve a crisis or a problem. No-one gets exactly what they want, but no-one is very unhappy either. Europe has had its history of fanatics and people not giving an inch and it has ended in lots and lots of bloodshed.

When a US politician talk about taking a stand, not giving in, being unforgiving and uncompromising (Bush is a good example) many Americans will feel that they have a strong person who will not betray them or leave them in the cold to save his own ass, while in Europe the same speech will send new cold chills down spines as memories of uncompromising European people like Stalin, Hitler, Franco, Louis XIV, Napoleon or Mussoline are woken (please observe that I am NOT comparing Bush to these people, I am merely making a point).

5. Humiliation

Most European nations have been humiliated. They have gone in guns blazing and lost big time. England in the hundred year's war, France 1940, Germany 1945 etc etc. Being humiliated add humility and makes the Europeans more humble. The US has never really experienced defeat when it has commited itself fully. The revolutionary war, ww1 and ww2 - the US has always been on the winning side and has never really been invaded, bombed, destroyed, occupied or stomped upon.

So Americans will not understand the European reluctance to commit itself -

the Europeans have learned from lots of defeat and lots of killing - the Americans have never really experienced a grand defeat to spoil the idea of being invincible like the Europeans have. So the Europeans will want to think twice, have a consensus in the UN and try to contain the conflict rather than go in with guns blazing. Perhaps the guns blazing is the right way sometimes, I do not make that argument now, I merely want to show the differences.

6. War

Europe has experienced hundreds of years of war, blood and destruction. All European nations have a Somme where entire generations were wiped out. This makes the Europeans even more reluctant to go for the arms to resolve a conflict or a problem. The US has never had such an experience. It has not been laid in smoking ruins by bombs or been trampled by invading armies the way most European nations have and will not understand how afraid many European nations is of war - the ghost of Somme and Verdun still looms in many European's mind.

I think these are the main reasons why Europeans and Americans have problems understanding each other. But there are more problems too. Europe once was the centre of the world, the place where the grand powers had their homelands.

Europe is not at all as important anymore, and it is a sore spot for many Europeans. While they acknowledge that they are not the power of the world anymore, they do not like having it shoved down their throat.

The US saying that they will go on their own, with or without Europe and lots of the uncompromisive and uncooperative rhetoric from America will push that very sore spot. Europe bled and died for freedom during ww2 and the US sat on their arses for two and a half year doing nothing, until they were attacked themselves. Europe was bombed from the centre of the world, Europe sacrificed everything while the Americans just sat around not bothering and now the Americans claim they saved Europe and they are so good and they fight for freedom and Europe are just cowards - PLEASE do not take that as a flamebait, it is an example on how a European can think when rhetoric from the US push a sore point.

It is like losing a game of chess - it is acceptable, but if the other party starts poking fun at you for it, you are bound to become pissed.

One of my NAQs (Never Asked Questions) is why "Greater Tokyo"? Strangely enough, that is a real geographical designation, albeit a loosely translated one. The Kantou area includes Saitama and Kanagawa prefectures, as well as Tokyo itself. This also happens to be one of the world's largest conurbations, with 33 million people, about a quarter of the national population.

The 23 wards (-ku) that make up Tokyo itself claim a population of 8 million between them. Shinjuku, my ward, is right in the heart of Tokyo, and apparently is on one of the most seismically stable spots in Tokyo, which explains the abundance of high rise skyscrapers in the ward. Confusingly, in Japanese, people would say Shinjukuku, not just Shinjuku. Sounds like they have a stutter, but that extra -ku just means ward.

For a better view of things, have a look at this satellite picture. My home is somewhere in row 8, column 7, where it says Shinjuku in kanji. In contrast, up until about a month ago I was in Kawagoe, row 5, column 4. It still looks mostly like concrete jungle on the satellite map, but it is quite different up close.