Is this rude to do in Japan ...

Miguel Cruz wrote:

ggg wrote:

Gerry wrote:

I believe, from a statistical point of view, that you are correct. In
the USA child molestation is a very tiny percent of crime--it is a
rarity. Nevertheless our fears here escalate the issue to one of
absolute prime importance. Our fear of "street crime" keep us out of
low-income areas where the crime rate, though higher than other areas,

that's not the case in NYC. Are you talking about a specific place?


Sure it is. New York City is miles better than most parts of the USA in this
regard (and in most that involve rational behavior and constructive social
interaction) but when I lived in Harlem there were many people who would not
visit. They made all sorts of excuses but it was pretty clear that they were
scared.

Interestingly (or perhaps not) all of these people were originally from Long
Island or New Jersey, so I guess they had been told all their lives how
awful and scary Harlem was. People who were actually from NYC, or from
elsewhere, had no problem.

miguel

so in a way yes but in a way no? Do many Mormons shift it more towards no?

what city is GERRY talking about from personal experience?

In article , ggg
wrote:

Gerry wrote:

Some of what follows I wrote, some I didn't. I'll try to hack it up to
respond only to comments on my statements.

I believe, from a statistical point of view, that you are correct.
In the USA child molestation is a very tiny percent of crime--it is
a rarity. Nevertheless our fears here escalate the issue to one of
absolute prime importance. Our fear of "street crime" keep us out
of low-income areas where the crime rate, though higher than other
areas,

that's not the case in NYC. Are you talking about a specific place?

I lived in NYC for a number of years. Queens and Manhattan. I'm not
sure which "case" it is that you're speaking of or of whom.

is very rarely "random" or predatory crime and is more related to
burglaries and domestic violence. Nevertheless you can't talk
anybody into going to a restaurant there since they're fearful of
the "crime" they read about in the shrieking headlines.

Is this a restaurant in Japan? If nobody wants to go there, how do
you know about it?

I wasn't speaking of a restaurant in Japan in the paragraph, so don't
know what you're speaking of.

convey. If in doubt, stay home, where you are more likely to be
subject to all the lurking dangers you seem to fear.

what lurking dangers?

Though that text was from another participant, the fear in question
regards someone stealing your shoes

Absolutely right. I went to Rio and everybody endlessly admonished
us to be fearful--don't wear jewelry, carry a camera, or wear nice
clothes on the street, etc. In the end I was galled that I had
spent 15% of my time wherever we "took a chance" going noting
escape routes, looking for potential assailants, ensuring my wife
walked in front of me, etc. I never encountered the *slightest*
difficulty there and ****ed away vast amounts of energy in anxiety
that wasn't necessary. Admittedly I went to not-so-nice areas as
well. Again--nothing but attendance by

but that has nothing to do with what I'm asking. I didn't make your
overprotective mistakes when I traveled alone and I didn't claim that
I would make your mistakes if I travelled to Japan.

You'll have to live with the fact that not every statement in every
post is going to address your concerns, yours alone and not discuss
anything that isn't directly in your line of questioning. Clearly (if
the reference to Rio wasn't enough), the topic has become larger than
your shoes, your selected temple and your season and time of day.
Usenet is like that.

the locals. I'm not saying it couldn't happen there, I'm saying
that opportunistic crime is much more a rarity most places in the
world than one would think by watching TV or listening to our
barricaded friends in wealthy societies.

What does tv have to do with my question?

Tangential. We've moved on. Suffer with it.

Being concerned that you'll be robbed for your shoes while in the
temple is understandable, paritcularly if you assume that the world
functions like the world depicted in the purportedly predator-heavy
USA-as-seen-through TV.

I've been in their dark corners of major cities late at night with
nothing but punks and drunks around me and never felt the slightest
fear.

Walking late at night. That is so cool and imaginative. I would
love to do that.

Okay, well clearly you're angry or hurt. This isn't all about you, but
about something larger. The culturally inculcated fears of crime that
have people--not you of course, but others, fearful of things they
needn't necessarily be fearful of. Nevertheless they--not you at
all--want to know the best way to take precauctions against these
non-events and want to know how to avoid embarrassment in them.

How to respond?

Maybe that *too* is disproportionate. If I'm picking delusions, I
prefer the ones that make me feel good and save me time.

compared to what?

Compared to those that make me feel frightened unnecessarily and waste
my time.

Or, take a chance--live on the wild side and see how often you are

Are you implying that going to Japan is a wild side thing to do?

Certainly some think so. I talk with great excitement about our trips
and our friends just shake their ends and think it's something
impossible and gutsy to do.

It's one of the easiest things to do if you have money or if you
believe you can feed yourself on teaching your native language (not
that there's anything wrong with that) but that's one of the reasons
I didn't do as my Japanese teacher suggested and do language learning
right i.e. in situ because I didn't want to be part of that heyday
phenom.

Well think of my friends: Imagine the "wild side" aspect if you didn't
speak or read the language and assume that the native population can't
speak or read your language. It could be daunting.

whose shoes? If you mean my shoes, I already wrote that it's not
about whether I might lose my shoes but can I get away with keeping
my shoes with me. I didn't say anything or imply anything about
crime.

You said:

Does anyone ever take off their shoes when required but not leave
them with the rest of the shoes? I know that HK tourists take them
in Thailand to avoid theft and I have an article about Burma where
the girls take off their shoes at temple but carry their shoes along.

Note the phrase "avoid theft" in there? Certainly the proximity to the
question makes a decided connection.

Once, after fussing with a camera on a public bench we trundled off
taking pictures. Three blocks later and out-of-breath woman
galloped up to us and proffered my lens cap! On three or four
occasions we've

wow, that might have been me several times in NYC. That might have
been the guy who returned a dropped glove for another pedestrian in
NYC or tries to pull someone back from the edge when a train
approaches - happens ALL the time. The only times anyone has made an
issue about it is when they're from out of town. It's not a big
deal.

Some think crime and attitudes towards crime are different between NYC
and Tokyo. Yours is the first that seems to imply they're comparable.
But then clearly you've gotten your panties in a knot along the line.
So at this point, what you say and what you mean seem to be diverging
greatly.

It seems you feel insulted for the implication that you're a pansy-ass
that's afraid of every footfall. That wasn't my intent. But what's
done is done. Somehow the topic veered away from you and only you and
how comparing the atmostphere of fear and crime in the USA is not the
same as Japan. Sorry we didn't stick with how to hold your shoes, for
what reason I can't imagine, despite the fact that theft was never a
motivation.

I'm of the belief that Japanese long for such opportunities to
demonstrate their attendance to the common good and their
accomodation for addled outsiders. They may snort about us
privately, I don't know. But they sure do make for a delightful
environment.

that's a common experience in NYC where my neighbors shovel snow for
the elderly or people just do for others even though this is a city
with crime problems - one doesn't have anything to do with the other
so I didn't expect my question to rile up a defensive tangent.

I have nothing to be defensive about. I like Tokyo, I love the way they
work for their common good and adhere to very stringent social ideals
that I think would be *insufferable* if I had to grow up Japanese. I
didn't. I grew up mostly int he USA which I love and recognize as
vastly flawed in many ways. I can't defend either.

Nobody I know considers being nice a cultural thing, they don't
consider it at all.

You make no sense: Of course in the USA we consider being nice! After
consideration sometimes we decide to be rude, instead. Sometimes to
strangers, sometimes to friends--but only when they "deserve it" or
"are asking for it". I don't think Unitedstatesians, here or abroad,
much consider their actions as "representing our country", in the same
way the Japanese might.

But as I say, you're bent now because you feel you've been criticized.
Sorry about that, it wasn't my intent to criticize you, but to step
back and look at some perceptions that we have, perceptions others have
and compare them.

--
Invest wisely: Over the past 75 years, stocks have averaged annual gains of 2.3
percent under GOP administrations, compared with 9.5 under Democratic ones.
-- Jerry Heaster

ggg wrote on Mon 06 Dec 2004 05:19:11a

Chris Kuan wrote:

I think if you took a special drawstring bag for your shoes, people
might even see it is quirkily cute behaviour.

I would think that looked really bad.

Sorry, I meant to imply "... and then stuff that bag into your rucksack,
out of sight." I think the fastidiousness, if accidentally glimpsed, might
be impressive, as long as it was not flaunted.



The best HK people are great.

They form a large proportion of my friends :-)

--
Chris
Concatenate for email: mrgazpacho @ hotmail . com

"Miguel Cruz" kirjoitti viestissä
...
x
Sure it is. New York City is miles better than most parts of the USA in
this
regard (and in most that involve rational behavior and constructive social
interaction) but when I lived in Harlem there were many people who would
not
visit. They made all sorts of excuses but it was pretty clear that they
were
scared.

Interestingly (or perhaps not) all of these people were originally from
Long
Island or New Jersey, so I guess they had been told all their lives how
awful and scary Harlem was. People who were actually from NYC, or from
elsewhere, had no problem.

So, ****** pimps and drug abusers did not set your car in fire; didn't even
steal the wheels nor did they finalize their evil work by cutting your head
into two pieces by an axe. The neighbourhood was popular amongst Finnish
immigrants long, long ago.

In article , ggg
wrote:

I believe, from a statistical point of view, that you are correct. In
the USA child molestation is a very tiny percent of crime--it is a
rarity. Nevertheless our fears here escalate the issue to one of
absolute prime importance. Our fear of "street crime" keep us out of
low-income areas where the crime rate, though higher than other areas,

that's not the case in NYC. Are you talking about a specific place?

Sure it is. New York City is miles better than most parts of the USA in this
regard (and in most that involve rational behavior and constructive social
interaction) but when I lived in Harlem there were many people who would not
visit. They made all sorts of excuses but it was pretty clear that they were
scared.

Interestingly (or perhaps not) all of these people were originally from Long
Island or New Jersey, so I guess they had been told all their lives how
awful and scary Harlem was. People who were actually from NYC, or from
elsewhere, had no problem.

I knew people living in Soho that wouldn't go past Columbia on the
upper West Side. They were from Queens. I don't think it's about
where your initial physical home was. I think it's about attitudes,
and how they are propigated. Anybody who's been mugged or raped,
clearly is a lot more sensitive about where they go. That makes sense.
Then there are their friends that know they were assaulted. That still
makes better sense. Then there's the television and newspaper articles
people apparently clutch to their breast that seems to make every fart
into an endemic aspect of any city anywhere.

so in a way yes but in a way no? Do many Mormons shift it more towards no?

I find your questions and your statements seem to be missing key
elements of

what city is GERRY talking about from personal experience?

Which statement is it that GERRY made that you're referring to?

I have problems getting folks to go all kinds of places in Los Angeles.
I've noted a few things that seem to make them uncomfortable. Shabby
areas, graffiti and ethnic faces. People come in from Dallas, for
instance and mention as we drive through perfectly nice areas in Los
Angeles that it seems like a "bad neighborhood" or that it's "scary". I
couldn't figure out what it was they were seeing. Then I began to
realize the street was dominated by Latinos, blacks, Koreans or that
there was a fair amount of graffiti around. These are only guesses
regarding their thinking. They don't want to eat there. But any mall
anywhere, particularly if there are predominantly anglo faces seemed to
be fine.

--
Invest wisely: Over the past 75 years, stocks have averaged annual gains of 2.3
percent under GOP administrations, compared with 9.5 under Democratic ones.
-- Jerry Heaster

Chris Kuan wrote:
(ggg) wrote on Sun 05 Dec 2004 03:38:35a

Is bicycle theft not a problem in Japan?

There is an unspoken "global exchange" program with respect to
bicycles and
umbrellas. If you are absolutely desperate for either on a given
occasion,
it is common to just take one of a big group, on the understanding
that you
leave it next time. I don't think this is acceptable for obviously
expensive items or one of small groups, or for an item for which some
care
has been taken to isolate or otherwise secure it.

I'd say this is really misleading. For one thing it indicates that it's
okay to walk up and ride off on an unattended, unlocked bike (remember
we're in a forum for giving travel advice); bike theft is illegal in
Japan and for a tourist it could mean a quick trip home. And most of
the time if someone steals a bike there is no compulsion to take it
back to the station the next time they go. That might be the case, but
not out of any feelings of moral responsiblity; chances are that the
person needs to return to that station. But look along the roads in
Japan and you will see discarded bikes. Not a lot, but they're there.

As for umbrellas, a cheap umbrella costs a hundred yen, so why steal
one? Like any country when you put your umbrella in a rack at a
restaurant you expect it to be there when you leave; it might not be,
but that's not because there's some unspoken rule that says it's okay
to steal.

So there is no unspoken 'global exchange' program for stealing bikes
and umbrellas in Japan.

John W.

In article . com, John
W. wrote:

As for umbrellas, a cheap umbrella costs a hundred yen, so why steal
one? Like any country when you put your umbrella in a rack at a
restaurant you expect it to be there when you leave; it might not be,
but that's not because there's some unspoken rule that says it's okay
to steal.

So there is no unspoken 'global exchange' program for stealing bikes
and umbrellas in Japan.

I've never heard of borrowed bikes, but thought the original post
referred to bringing it back when done. When I see acres of bikes
outside of manufacturing plants in the countryside that seems to make
sense. Otherwise now.

Nevertheless, with umbrella's I frequently left restaurants when the
rain had started up outside, and had restaurant aid pop them open for
us and proffer. I was impressed. I've never taken one without the
offer, but have seen Japanese do just that--take umbrellas they didn't
bring in.

--
Invest wisely: Over the past 75 years, stocks have averaged annual gains of 2.3
percent under GOP administrations, compared with 9.5 under Democratic ones.
-- Jerry Heaster

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 07:56:10 -0800, Gerry wrote:

[snip]
Anybody who's been mugged or raped,
clearly is a lot more sensitive about where they go. That makes sense.
[snip]

Depends where that happened. Back in the 70s and 80s, I faced muggings
or attempted muggings on the Upper West Side and Upper East Side. More
recently, I was threatened on Utica Av. in Brooklyn. In all the years
I taught at Bronx Community College, I never had any problem except
for the time one spooky student sort of stalked me (and never laid a
hand on me), and I've never had any problem in Harlem at all, nor in
any part of Brooklyn other than that one day on and around Utica Av.
So what should I conclude? Perhaps that the Upper West and East Sides
used to be more dangerous. Then again, my parents witnessed a murder
on 74 St. and Columbus Av. in the late 80s or so (early 90s? I don't
remember exactly). That isn't and wasn't a dangerous neighborhood, but
murders can happen anywhere. So would it have been sensible for them
to move out of the Upper West Side or avoid 74 St. from then on? I
don't think so. There's a difference between reactions that are based
on fact and those that are not. I used to know a woman who found
someplace ostensibly dangerous everywhere she went, including peaceful
little villages in Vermont. Now, on the other hand, don't expect me to
go back to Utica Av. in the foreseeable future, especially as I have
no reason to...

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.

In article , Pan
wrote:

Anybody who's been mugged or raped, clearly is a lot more
sensitive about where they go. That makes sense.

[snip]
That isn't and wasn't a dangerous neighborhood, but murders can
happen anywhere. So would it have been sensible for them to move out
of the Upper West Side or avoid 74 St. from then on? I don't think
so.
[snip]

I think it makes sense to make decisions based on your own experience,
and your own logical response to this experience. I wouldn't
second-guess that of your parents after witnessing a murder nor of
yours after being mugged. That doesn't mean you have to move or change
your life. But if you do, it makes sense to me. Some folk after a
burglarly spend extravagant money on a security system, even if the
burglary is a total anamoly. But they want to sleep at night--so that
makes sense to me.

Others in our little world watch the TV and the "work out the logic" in
discussion with folks, like myself, where they speak about predators as
if they were 85% of the population and mugging/rape/murder as the 2nd
biggest hobby after sports-viewing. Again, their fears are their own.
But I think there's a different between culturally-inculcated paranoia,
and reasonable response to personal experience. Not that the end
effect is any different...

There's a difference between reactions that are based on fact and
those that are not. I used to know a woman who found someplace
ostensibly dangerous everywhere she went, including peaceful little
villages in Vermont.

Who knows what in her background produced this effect? I'm not saying
her, or others', fear isn't real, though. Or that it's not a source of
discomfort. Where this thread started was with the general perspective
that this ubiquitous environment-related fear doesn't seem to be
operative in Japan the way it is among "just folks" in the US, as well
as the more paranoid--however they became that way.

Now, on the other hand, don't expect me to go back to Utica Av. in
the foreseeable future, especially as I have no reason to...

--
Invest wisely: Over the past 75 years, stocks have averaged annual gains of 2.3
percent under GOP administrations, compared with 9.5 under Democratic ones.
-- Jerry Heaster