Ah, the fun that can be had on the subject of how multicultural/multiethnic/diverse Japan is ...
Political scientists on this list may not all be fully aware of it, but in disciplines such as anthropology and sociology, there has been a conspicuous trend in recent years to focus on how diverse and non-monocultural Japan is. This we see books with titles such as Multiethnic Japan (2001), Multicultural Japan (2001), and Transcultural Japan (2007), for instance, as well as Sonia Ryang's eloquent and interesting Japan and National Anthropology (2004), which criticises anthropology that has focused on the nation of Japan. All this is certainly a useful counterbalance to earlier tendencies to focus on homogeneity in Japan, and as Jean-Paul Helary and the books mentioned above (and a good few other
publications) point out, there is indeed plenty of diversity in contemporary Japan, whether in terms of regional cultures or social class, for instance. But it all depends what you use as an indicator. It can actually be quite hard to make comparisons, because comparisons depend on the availability of reliable statistics, and nation-states have an annoying (though
interesting) habit of using different categories to collect their statistics, making it hard to compare like with like. For instance, to the best of my knowledge (I am happy to be corrected) the French government does not officially recognise minority groups because it considers this irrelevant; what matters is French nationality, which makes you French regardless of any other attributes. But, just for illustration, here are a few stats that I present to my own students to help them think about this issue of 'how diverse/multicultural/multiethnic is Japan?'

According to the 2001 UK census, 8% of the UK population was from a non-white ethnic group. (Note that this does not include groups such as Welsh, Scottish Highlanders, and Irish, for instance, who might well have a strong claim to be considered ethnic groups; that would make the UK figure significantly
larger.)

In Germany in 2006, 18% of the population were either non-nationals or Germans with an immigrant background.

In the Netherlands, immigrants were 19% of the population in 2006. (Stats are from the following useful website, sponsored by the Council of Europe:
www.culturalpolicies.net.)

In Multiethnic Japan, John Lie argues that about 5% of the population of Japan can be considered minority groups (he includes burakumin and Okinawans as well as Ainu, Koreans, Chinese, nikkeijin and others). This is a pretty maximal definition and it might well be argued that the burakumin population (the largest minority, though one whose number is hard to know) is a 'minority' on a different basis (caste) than most of the other groups he includes, which makes this 5% figure problematic if comparing with e.g. the countries above. (Though as Paul Midford has pointed out, one can also bear in mind that the 'Korean-Japanese' population in Japan is larger than official stats about zainichi, as once Koreans take Japanese nationality they no longer show up in minority statistics.) But even if one accepts Lie's argument, it is immediately clear that if the statistics above are reasonably accurate, Japan is significantly less diverse in these terms than what might be considered relatively comparable countries (I do not consider comparisons with the US worthwhile in this respect - the two countries are too different).

The problem with some of the arguments from those emphasising Japan's diversity, to my mind, is that they tend to use an unhelpful dualism, i.e. 'Japan is not monocultural/homogenous - therefore, Japan is multicultural.' This is too simple. Certainly, Japan is not monocultural or homogeneous and emphasising this is necessary to help break down the persistent popular myth that it is. But the issue of degree of diversity can't be ignored, though it often is. To my mind, the more interesting questions are how and where (for
example) Japan is or is not diverse/multicultural.

Peter Cave
University of Manchester =