This. My experience in SE Asia has shown me this. Those really strong family links make people happy and provide a safety net that can't be beaten. But it comes at the cost of suppressing all individuality. No following your dream of being an artist - you need to earn money for the family. No marrying the weird guy your mum hates. No moving city because you need to find yourself.
It's shocking how HN is just overlooking this trait in addition to the very many related things in this regard that we would consider in America VERY "right-wing" to put it kindly. Having Japanese family members over there and listening to their remarks amuses me since I hear their candid opinions on race and such, but uh... Americans who idolize the country and identify as "progressive" or "liberal" would probably do well to think a bit more before praising their society while condemning the conservative wing of the US political alignment.
Well, unless your premise is that the less savoury aspects of some of Japan’s citizens’ views are responsible for the aspects of their country and society that we might admire (and I don’t think you are saying that) then this is tangential to the question we are discussing.
It’s not unreasonable to acknowledge or even admire some aspects of a person, a company, or a country, while also being aware that there are other aspects that are less admirable.
>> It’s not unreasonable to acknowledge or even admire some aspects of a person, a company, or a country, while also being aware that there are other aspects that are less admirable.
They are two sides of the same coin. You have the "nice" stuff because of the xenophobic policies. I'd be willing to wager the majority - if not all - of the people that loved Japan were white and didn't think about it at all.
The recent claim (maybe 10 ya) was that Yakuza influence forced inspectors to sign off on foundations that were not sound. So they do not have the required pilings. I don't know how that could be fixed, but I don't assert it couldn't be. I assume if it is, it would have been done by now.
> ..Coastal areas in the region have prepared tsunami evacuation plans in anticipation of a possible future Cascadia earthquake.
> However, the major nearby cities, notably Seattle, Portland, Vancouver, Victoria, and Tacoma, which are located on inland waterways rather than on the coast, would be sheltered from the full brunt of a tsunami.
> These cities do have many vulnerable structures, especially bridges and unreinforced brick buildings; consequently, most of the damage to the cities would probably be from the earthquake itself.
> One expert asserts that buildings in Seattle are vastly inadequate even to withstand an event of the size of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, let alone any more powerful one.
> Kenneth Murphy, who directs FEMA's Region X, the division responsible for Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska, put it quite dramatically: "Our operating assumption is that everything west of Interstate 5 will be toast."
