For one thing, I don't think one could make the case that the Japanese (not Japanese-Americans) were ever wholly oppressed by the Europeans. The Meiji did a pretty good job of averting that possibility. As for the post-War era, I hope you're not suggesting there's something special about the downtrodden conditions of being a country that instigated a war and then lost it. Because that's nothing new at all and has nothing to do with European supremacy.
But the point I was making is: the poster I was addressing has apparently extrapolated from intersectional theory this idea that the passing phenomenon of European supremacy has resulted in every class of person other than European heterosexual men suffering from some sort of societal exclusion (a reference to the intersectional theory of marginalization, which IMO is a reworking of the Marxist theory of alienation). But the reality is that the domination of the aforementioned "privileged" class was never absolute, and there are plenty of other classes of persons who do not suffer from societal exclusion, which becomes especially clear when certain other areas of the world are referenced.
Of course I am not arguing the West caused Japan's militarism that was forged in their own particular racism and supremacy, successive technical culture shocks and yes, the opening up of Japanese culture to counterfactuals which would culminate in the defeat of the doctrine of Imperialist divine authority and the feudal order that sustained it. Except it didn't because Japanese culture faced a defeat so resounding it is still grappling with it in a way we do not grasp fully. The oppression of Japan begins with colonialism and the Jesuits. It's not the same colonialism experienced elsewhere. It's unique. Largely because Japan is still ethnically Japanese and this because citizenship is reserved for Japanese. The effects of colonialist imperialism are much more subtle and different, but not nonexistent.
My point is that you cannot apply the same lens to understanding intersectionality in Japan as in the US. For one, the theory is American. The colonial body is different in the US. Crenshaw is not a Marxist. Your exegesis is outside of what the original thinker intended. I'm sticking with power structures which is Foucauldian analysis. Foucault is not a Marxist. He's closer to a neoliberal. But again this theory was developed regionally for Black North Americans and their struggle. In the US, white cisgendered males who are heterosexual hold the most privilege based on any metric. Going to Japan is a diversion. The theory was not developed for Japan. Plenty of places have different social history and class differences.
The term exclusion is too strong. What we are expressing is marginalization. In the U.S. this happens according to markers of race class gender etc. which it does the world over. However, taking the US and doing comparative analysis to disprove using other nations is pointless. Of course it doesn't line up. These are different countries. Cisgendered... are not the leaders in every nation. That doesn't make the argument for Imtersectionality wrong, it means power structures differ.
It was a regular question, not a rhetorical one (I could rewrite it as "Why do you hold the belief that MickyLee, Fade, or TNJ is awash with a thirst for vengeance against straight men?" and it'd be more clear. Just tripped over a turn of phrase).
