IS NIKE MAKING A PLAY ON A CHANGING JAPAN?
Nike has a new ad out in Japan and as expected it’s beautifully shot, action-filled, and generating controversy. Is Nike trying to ruffle feathers, or are they trying to solidify their brand presence in a changing Japan?
Nike has a new ad out in Japan and as expected it’s beautifully shot, action-filled, and generating controversy. The ad, titled “The Future Isn’t Waiting,” focuses on bullying in Japanese schools, specifically the treatment of those who are biracial or of different ethnicities.
The ad’s cast consists of a biracial (Black and Japanese) girl, a Zainichi (foreign resident of Japan) Korean girl, and a Japanese girl who is bullied in school and online. The three speak candidly throughout the ad about their struggles to fit in, with intercut scenes of them finding comfort and safety in playing soccer. Of course, it wouldn’t be a Nike ad without a cameo from a famous athlete, and this one features the exemplary Ms. Naomi Osaka, a biracial Japanese tennis player who is outspoken over her support for the Black Lives Matter movement. The overall message is the same as all of Nike’s ads, that their product can help you stand out and achieve your goals despite the obstacles in your way. Hence the campaign’s hashtag #YouCantStopUs. So what about this is causing controversy?
Shortly after it was released it was met with criticism by the general public in Japan who felt that Nike was portraying Japan as a country that has rampant racial and discrimination issues. Comments on YouTube have been questioning why Nike felt the need to portray racial discrimination in Japan. After all, isn’t there racial discrimination in every country? Why make that the basis for a sports clothing brand’s advertisement? Some have even called for a boycott of Nike to show their frustration with the company's depiction of Japan and to highlight the hypocrisy of their controversial use of forced Uighyur labor in China.
Naomi Osaka, who made a cameo in the Nike ad, is known for her activism with the BLM movement.
On the other hand, some commenters have praised the ad for highlighting the problem of discrimination in Japan and bringing the issue into the spotlight. The like:dislike ratio on YouTube is pretty much split equally, which shows how polarizing the effect of this ad has been. This means that beneath the surface image of a country known for politeness and modesty is a great clash of ideas over what Japan is, what it is becoming, and who it is for- and Nike is taking note.
Japanese society is one that places harmonious relationships above all else. One must consider the group dynamic before considering individual needs, and one’s uniqueness or talents should never be displayed at the forefront. There is a famous Japanese phrase, “the nail that sticks out gets hammered down.” This ad is the antithesis to that.
The beginning shows the three main girls explicitly asking themselves (while training) if they are good, or rather, normal enough to be a part of Japanese society. A Zainichi Korean girl is stared at as she walks down the street in a Hanbok (traditional Korean dress.) A biracial girl is teased about her hair. A Japanese girl is cyberbullied by comments on the videos she posts online and bullied at school. They all ask themselves if they should try and fit in more. Yet it’s apparent that no matter what they do, they stand out because of who they are.
All of this comes to a head when the young Japanese girl yells at her mother to stop comparing her to everyone else. These words uttered from her change the course of the ad to one that displays Nike’s trademark confidence. The Korean girl changes the Japanese last name on her soccer jersey to her original one, the Japanese girl steps into a game confidently, and the young biracial girl smiles in the mirror as all three declare in the locker room, “It doesn’t have to be like this,” while Naomi Osaka makes her cameo to reaffirm the young girls’ declaration. They then exclaim that the future will be different, but they’re not going to wait for it to change, followed by the tagline #YouCantStopUs.
While speaking up and being individualistic is a cornerstone of the American attitude, this is not the case for Japan. This begs the question, why did Nike place this ad in a country that prides itself on social harmony, racial homogeneity, and whose culture does not like to ruffle feathers? I believe it’s because Nike is making a play on a future, more diverse Japan to be its customer base.
Currently, Japan is facing a population crisis with an aging population that is outpacing births. Not only is this causing financial stress on the country, but it's also causing an identity crisis. There have been many government initiatives to get Japanese youth to reproduce, but with a depressed economy, a culture of overwork, and a general fear of intimacy, it is proving harder to entice young people to have kids. There are several other factors that have contributed to this problem, but the conclusion is there is a real risk that the Japanese population will go extinct. Still, mixed-race Japanese children are rising in births, and more and more parents are willing to raise them in Japan. The only issue is, Japanese people do not view them as Japanese.
Ms. Ariana Miyamoto, or Miss Japan 2015. She was the first mixed-race woman to win the competition.
Mixed-race people in Japan are viewed as somewhat of a commodity. Japanese enough, but still foreign and unique. Many become entertainers and athletes and are claimed as Japanese when they become famous or well-known. That still has not stopped prejudices against mixed-race children, especially those of whom have darker skin and less European features. Ariana Miyamoto was crowned the winner of the Miss Japan Pageant in 2015, and received praise as being poised and elegant, traditionally prized traits for Japanese women. However many Japanese felt uncomfortable with her representing Japan because she was half-black. Ms. Miyamoto speaks Japanese and has lived in Japan her entire life. She identifies as Japanese, and holds a 5th degree mastery of Japanese calligraphy. However, simply because of her appearance she was deemed “not Japanese enough,” by the public, despite the fact that the judges of the pageant felt like she represented a more modern Japan. The risk of extinction of the Japanese ethnicity brings the anxiety of the loss of Japanese culture. The Japanese myth of homogeneity rests in the fact that the Japanese view their culture as something unique from the rest of the world, despite the fact that many elements of it are borrowed. Japanese calligraphy for example is Chinese characters, and tea ceremony would not exist without the introduction of tea to Japan. Nonetheless culture is just that, borrowing elements from other countries and making it one's own. But it is the desire of the Japanese to make their own variations exclusive, and constant in an ever-changing world. Thus these art forms are at risk of being lost due to the decreasing population.
But it’s not only population decline that is leading to a loss of culture. General lack of interest from the younger generation in these activities is leading to their decline. The dying out of these arts is a cause for anxiety, yet when people who do not “look” Japanese express a desire to preserve these traditions and culture, they are shot down due to their multidimensional heritage. The solution to preserving the culture lies within those who view Japan as their home, yet are still excluded.
Another issue Japan is facing in regards to its declining population is the lack of domestic workers. Japan is known for its convenience stores that are open 24/7 and are constantly stocked, however as the population shrinks so have the number of stock workers and cashiers at these establishments. It’s not only convenience stores that need slots to be filled. Nursing homes in Japan are becoming crowded with the aging population and nurses are very much needed. Filipino nurses have been immigrating to Japan on work visas and are trained in Japanese etiquette and language before being assigned to posts. They are allowed to stay long term in the country, however, their pay is low and there is an implied notion that the worker will return home.
Immigration from foreign countries floats at around 2% for Japan. This is because it is notoriously difficult to become a permanent resident of Japan. Individuals not sponsored by a company have to hop through several hoops of paperwork and bureaucracy, LGBT individuals are not allowed to stay with Japanese national partners unless they have their own visa, and dual citizen children have to choose one nationality after their 22nd birthday. If one wants to become a citizen it requires several exams showing a knowledge of the country’s history, language, and changing one’s last name to a Japanese one. Still, even the individual who goes through this process would not necessarily be called “Japanese.”
The concept of nationality and ethnicity not being interconnected is a foreign concept to the Japanese. I remember while living in Tokyo people asking me “Where are you from?”
When I would tell them I was from America they would be shocked and say “You don’t look it though,” or, “but are you full American?”
I understood that in their minds American is someone who is most likely to be blonde-haired and blue-eyed, and I would then explain that while my ethnicity is Indian, I was born and raised in America, making me Indian American.
The Zainichi Koreans exemplify this inability for Japanese to separate ethnicity from nationality. The Zainichi Koreans living in Japan are like many minorities who have resided in America. They have been in Japan for several generations, they speak Japanese, and almost all have changed their ancestral last names to Japanese ones to fit in. Many do not even speak Korean, and would be considered foreigners in Korea. However, unlike in America, where citizenship is granted at birth, the Koreans who live in Japan are not even able to claim a Japanese passport. Unlike the hyphenated American prefix/suffix, Zainichi are not considered “Japanese.” The name literally means “foreign resident.” Not establishing any type of nationality for these ethnically intersectional residents further excludes them from society. In this case they are not simply immigrant workers who are fulfilling a job role. They are people whose entire lives have been lived in a country that has not accepted them, and yet who continue to contribute to it. By bringing in a variety of cuisine, and a unique culture, it is at the behest of the Yale Review of International Studies that the Japanese government try to support the Zainichi to make Japan a more “mature multi-cultural society.”
Zainichi Koreans are not a monolith, and the situation of discrimination is complex, especially when it comes to those who identify more as Japanese than Korean. What is clear however is that instead of supporting the multicultural aspects of the Zainichi, Japanese society would prefer for them to stick in with the group and integrate at the cost of their Korean identity.
While Japanese citizens criticize this ad for displaying Japan in an unflattering light, Nike’s decision to depict Japan this way was not taken lightly. Whether the depiction is accurate or not I believe depends on the unique experiences of each individual, and Nike has stated that the ad was based on several athletes' experiences. Sure it may ruffle feathers, but at the end of the day Nike has a brand image to uphold. An image of a company that prides itself on outfitting the best athletes who do not fit in with the crowd, and sees the opportunity to celebrate those who are unique in a changing Japan.
Japan is changing fast. From the higher rates of birth from mixed-race couples, to foreign workers who are coming in to alleviate workforce shortages, to minority communities who are beginning to be more represented, Japan’s homogeneity myth is falling apart. Therefore I believe Nike is making a bet that Japan’s future is going to be more individualistic and more diverse, whether the government or citizens chose to acknowledge this or not. Even if Nike isn’t playing the long game and the overall goal of the ad is only to highlight the adversity athletes can overcome, Nike is still identifying themselves as the brand who noticed the “foreign resident” consumer. As the ad says “The future isn't waiting,” and Nike isn't either.
WET MARKETS ARE BEING BLAMED FOR COVID-19...WHAT IF THEY COULD SAVE US?
Wet markets are being blamed for the spread of Covid-19, and calls are being made for banning them. What if these markets actually hold the solution to our problem of unsustainable food production?
Photo by Chromatograph on Unsplash
It seems with all the narratives going on about the origin of the coronavirus, excluding conspiracy theories about 5G towers causing it, there seems to be one culprit that everyone can agree started the pandemic that has changed the world. China’s wet markets. Now that we are desperately searching for solutions to this historical problem, some calls are being made worldwide to ban wet markets completely.
However; there needs to be a clear distinction between a wet market and a wild animal market. Wet markets are outdoor markets that sell produce and meats direct from the farmer to the customer. These markets are characterized by the stalls that line up and down a street or hawker center, with several merchants selling their produce and meats to clientele that they have known for years, much like a farmers market in Santa Monica.
A wild animal market is one where merchants sell animals that are well...wild, and we have no immunity from the diseases that they carry, unlike domestic livestock that we have had contact with for thousands of years. The meat they supply can come from several sources, including farms specializing in wild animal breeding, but it can also come from illegal sources, with endangered animals being sold as well. Furthermore a key difference between a regular wet market and a wild animal market is the clientele that they serve. While a wet market is patronized by people who are essentially doing their grocery shopping, China’s wild animal markets are a hotbed of corruption, with many endangered species being sold to be eaten by the upper echelon of Chinese society, thereby making their product not obtainable for the everyday citizen. The virus that has changed our lives started developing in one of these types of markets in Wuhan that sold exotic meats. The animals were placed in conditions where they frequently were in contact with each other, therefore the virus mutated; jumping from a bat, to a pangolin, and then to us humans.
A market in Hong Kong, where strict sanitation standards have been adopted. Wet markets like these are the norm in many urban areas.
Photo by Adli Wahid on Unsplash
It is easy to have the idea of banning all “wet markets'' because we quite frankly cannot afford to have another disease spring up, but I don't think the solution is making a false equivalency between an institution that serves and an institution that exploits. Essentially, we should not throw the baby out with the bath water, especially since that particular baby helps millions of people everyday, and could in fact be the solution to the damaging effects of our current food production systems. No, the baby doesn't need to be thrown out...it just needs a second rinse.
Wet markets, throughout the world, have formed through the timeless currency of human relationships. The relationship between farmer and seller, and between vendor and customer. They operate in ways that form interconnected communities of people who have built trust over years, sometimes decades. It is transparent shopping, as one can question a stall’s food source and get an immediate answer, as well as being able to see the quality of where their next cooked meal is coming from. We in America, and especially Los Angeles, have an appreciation for farm to table food, and while that may be a luxury to most over here, in places where wet markets are the norm, farm to table is the norm as well. Therefore an all out ban on wet markets would deprive a huge population from being able to buy fresh, affordable food. With a gap in food acquisition caused by the ban, corporations would see this opportunity to capitalize, and would take advantage of the situation by swooping in and building supermarkets that would simply ship in products from factory farms. This would not only deprive the local farmer who used to provide to vendors, but would also deprive the consumer from having knowledge of where their food is coming from. As it is, humanity is having to re-evaluate its relationship with food. Factory farming has already caused so much depletion of the environment, so if a person has the opportunity to get their food sustainably, shouldn't it be encouraged? In fact, the wet markets may be the most sustainable option we have in terms of food acquisition. Farmers markets are praised in America as being the direct to source option for fresh produce, and the small scale farming allows for replenishing of soil nutrients as well as ensuring that people are not ingesting dangerous chemicals that are used in large-scale farming. Therefore the generalization that all Chinese wet markets are places where animals that are considered not to be food, by western standards, are being sold is both damaging to the livelihoods of several people who do not engage in exotic meat selling, as well as to the movement towards a more sustainable food structure. The ban would also affect the daily lives of patrons by taking away their strolls through the market, the chance to speak to friends, and the opportunity of being able to pick and choose what they want to eat and who they want to buy from.
A market in Hong Kong. Vendors and customers form interconnected relationships through years of transactions, and customers can see the quality of the ingredients of their next cooked meal.
Photo by Adli Wahid on Unsplash
“There needs to be a clear distinction between a wet market and a wild animal market.”
The ban would also cause the economic danger of countless people losing their livelihoods. Family farms are constantly under stress to provide food from a lack of resources (for quite honestly a ridiculously slim profit margin) so losing their source of vendors to the corporate factory farm structure would ensure they would have no way to compete, let alone sell. The ban on these markets would also destroy a whole sector of the economy that would have nowhere to turn in terms of finding other work, the market vendors.
Imagine you are a vendor who has been working at a market stall. For years you have been building networks with both the farmer and customer, been having a steady source of income, and have had a stable location to sell the wares you acquire. Now imagine one day you are told you are not allowed to sell based on a false equivalency of your operation to one that is both entirely different and far more corrupt. In one instant all your years of hard work would go down the drain. Skills such as negotiating and business savvy that have been gained through working in the stalls could easily be applied to many other fields, for sure, however it's obvious that job competition is stiff worldwide, therefore vendors would not simply be able to find work immediately after their livelihood is taken from them. A proposed solution suggested is that the Chinese government can provide financial assistance to these vendors until they are able to find other work, but economics aside, there is also the emotional toll of taking away from someone the profession that has made up most of their life, and in some cases, a generational operation.
City landscapes should also be taken into consideration, and how they would be negatively affected by the ban. These markets are a quintessential part of a city’s landscape and overall imagery, as the fruits, vegetables, and meats being sold are harvested locally, so you can visually see what ingredients make up the diet and palette of the residents. Each one also provides an atmosphere that is formed by the people who shop and sell. Adjectives most commonly used to describe them can range from “vibrant” to “romantic,” but overall I believe most people would simply say, “charming,”(I have to say there hasn't been a wet market I’ve been to that I haven't enjoyed.) Some wet markets even offer the service of taking the produce you buy and cooking it, so locals have a constant source of comfort foods they have grown up with, while visitors get the chance to enjoy a home cooked meal, hear the city’s native languages being spoken, all while being in a setting that represents the true self of the people who come in and out doing their errands.
Why, I then ask, would you want to replace the imagery of the stall lined centers and streets with large, concrete buildings filled with fluorescent lighting and muzak? (AKA the corporate supermarket.) Supermarkets coming into these regions would take away local signage, local character, and local cuisine. It would be the same heartbreak you would feel if your favorite local joint became a TGI Fridays, or if your “Mom & Pop” drugstore was taken down by Walgreens. That is what this ban would stoke the flames of, the corporatization assimilation process. One by one these blobs will pop up in every city the ban is enforced, and with their appearance, will rob it of its cultural identity.
Wet markets provide locals with comfort foods they have grown up with, and visitors with the opportunity to experience authentic cuisine.
Photo by Vernon Raineil Cenzon on Unsplash
I am not saying wet markets are perfect, but the problems that can arise from them, such as the one in Wuhan, can be mitigated by the solution of regulation being implemented to ensure the safety of the world from experiencing another pandemic like this. China, no stranger to regulation, could easily ban the sale of wild animals... permanently, and instead only allow the sale of produce and domestic livestock. Taking regulation further, sanitation practices must be implemented immediately and enforced strictly, very much in ways they are done in Hong Kong or Singapore wet markets. In terms of our own consumer habits, we should all take a good long hard look at how we acquire our food, and maybe realize that these markets have provided more sustainable and affordable options for people to get farm to table food than the larger systems currently in place worldwide.
The individual cultural imagery that each market provides may be a minor point to some, but we should look at the benefits it provides citizens. Instead of fluorescent glare it provides open air. Instead of long lines it provides community. Instead of packaged food, whose source is not known, it provides products that have been handed down a supply chain of people who have fostered trust, something that is visible to anyone who goes to one. A post-Covid world is going to look a lot different, but I believe that no matter what, progress should maintain an integrity to each unique culture, as opposed to creating a facade of a sterile state of homogeneity. So don't ban the markets, they may save us in the end.
Ishimoto Blog:
Integer posuere erat a ante venenatis dapibus posuere velit aliquet. Fusce dapibus, tellus ac cursus commodo, tortor mauris condimentum nibh, ut fermentum massa justo sit amet risus.