The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Volume 16 | Issue 21 | Number 2 | Article ID 5212 | Nov 01, 2018

1

Performing Ethnic Harmony: The Japanese Government’sPlans for a New Ainu Law

Tessa Morris-Suzuki

Dancing Towards Understanding

On 14 May 2018 the Japanese government’sCouncil for Ainu Policy Promotion accepted areport sketching the core features of a much-awaited new Ainu law which the Abegovernment hopes to put in place by 2020.1 Thelaw is the outcome of a long process of debate,protest and legislative change that has takenplace as global approaches to indigenous rightshave been transformed. In 2007, Japan wasamong the 144 countries whose vote securedthe adoption of the 2007 UN Declaration on theRights of Indigenous Peoples: a declarationwhich (amongst other things) confirms therights of indigenous peoples to the land theytraditionally occupied and the resources theytraditionally used, and to restitution for pastdispossession. 2 As a response to thisdeclaration, in 2008 both houses of theJapanese parliament voted unanimously (ifrather belatedly) to recognize the Ainu peopleas an indigenous people, and the governmentembarked on a ten-year process of deliberationabout the future of Ainu policy. The main fruitof those deliberations is the impending newlaw. But how far will this law go in fulfillingJapan’s commitment to the UN Declaration?Will it, in fact, be a step forward on the path ofindigenous people from colonial dispossessiontowards equality, dignity and ‘the right todevelopment in accordance with their ownneeds and interests’? Will it take account of thevigorous debates that are occurring within theAinu community about key aspects ofindigenous rights, including the voices of thosewhose demands are at odds with theaspirations of the Japanese government?3 Toanswer those questions, it is necessary to look

a little more closely at the way in which thepursuit of indigenous rights has played out inJapan over the past three decades or so.

In 1997 Japan f ina l ly abo l i shed theassimilationist ‘Former Aborigines ProtectionLaw’ which had governed Ainu affairs foralmost a century, and replaced it with a new‘Ainu Cultural Promotion Law’. The changecame after more than ten years of protest byAinu groups. In 1984, the Utari Association ofHokkaido (since renamed the Ainu Associationof Hokkaido) had called for the creation of aNew Ainu Law which, if implemented, wouldhave created guaranteed seats for Ainurepresentatives in Parliament and localassemblies, promoted the transmission of Ainuculture and language, recognized traditionalfishing and forest resource use rights, andestablished an ‘Ainu Independence Fund’ tosustain economic autonomy.4 But, as its titlesuggests, the law actually introduced in 1997met only a small part of these demands. Itrecognized and provided financial support forAinu traditional culture – including theteaching of Ainu language and the passing onof skills such as woodcarving and textilemaking – and it led to the creation of aFoundation for Research and Promotion of AinuCulture [Ainu Bunka Shinkō Kenkyū SuishinKikō] which, under the umbrella of the Ministryof Education and the Hokkaido DevelopmentAgency, was responsible for encouragingresearch and promoting activities related toAinu culture.

Many observers saw this as a first step in theright direction, but were disappointed by thelaw’s limitations. Ainu activist Tahara Ryoko

APJ | JF 16 | 21 | 2

2

summed up these mixed feelings when shecommented:

We Ainu wanted the restoration ofthe rights that had been takenaway from us, and demandedvarious things. In the end thisturned out just to be a law topromote culture, but all the same ithas great meaning as a first step ina new law recognising the Ainupeople, and we acknowledge thehard work done by those whocreated it... [But] we Ainu thoughtthis was a law for the Ainu people.We hoped that when this law wascreated it would bring greatbenefits to Ainu. We called foreducat ion and culture, theelimination of discrimination,employment measures , anautonomy fund and many things.But the law that has been passed isan Ainu culture law. This is not alaw that Ainu alone can make useof. Rather, it benefits wajin [non-Ainu Japanese]. For example, anygroups or individuals who conductresearch or run cultural events onAinu can apply for support [underthe law]... And if you apply forsupport, you can get the chance toappreciate traditional dance. Inorder to be seen and understood,we Ainu will have to dance with allour might.5

Concerns were also raised about the fact thatthe majority of senior positions in TheFoundation for Research and Promotion of AinuCulture went to non-Ainu: a situation whichpersisted even as the representation of Ainu inthe Foundation gradually improved.6

Ten years on , in the wake o f the UNDeclaration and the parliamentary recognition

of Ainu as an indigenous people, there was arenewed flurry of activity around issues of Ainurights. In 2008 Hokkaido University conducteda sample survey on the social conditions andattitudes of Hokkaido Ainu, which highlightedongoing problems of discrimination anddisadvantage. The report cited an official figureof 23,782 for the Ainu population of Hokkaido:a figure derived from a government surveywhich ‘defined Ainu as people who areconsidered to have Ainu bloodline and thosewho reside with Ainu people due to marriage,adoption and so forth, and counted those whommunicipal governments concerned couldidentify as Ainu’.7 This figure, though, isrecognized to be a serious underestimate ofJapan’s total Ainu population. Identification is acomplex issue for several reasons. On the onehand, a substantial number of people who areaware of having Ainu ancestry do notacknowledge it in public because of continuingdiscrimination (and are therefore not identifiedby municipal governments as being Ainu).Significantly, the Hokkaido University survey(which collected responses only from peoplewho did publicly identify as Ainu) found that44.1% of respondents reported having feltembarrassed about being Ainu because ofexperiences of discrimination, while only 2.2%said that non-Ainu friends or acquaintances hadmade them feel proud to be Ainu.8 On the otherhand, the ‘bloodline’ criterion, which identifiespeople as Ainu only if they are known to havesome Ainu ancestry, is problematic becausethere are people – particularly children ofethnic Japanese heritage who have beenadopted by Ainu families – who do not meet thiscriterion but do identify and are identified bytheir communities as Ainu. Besides, there arethousands of Ainu people who no longer live inHokkaido but have migrated to other parts ofJapan; and in addition, as we shall see, peoplewith Karafuto (Sakhalin) Ainu or Chishima(Kurile) Ainu ancestry are often neglected indiscussions of Ainu issues.

The Hokkaido University survey, which focused

APJ | JF 16 | 21 | 2

3

on Ainu living in Hokkaido, noted gradualimprovements in the social position of Ainu, butalso pointed to ongoing disadvantage of thesort experienced by many indigenouscommunities worldwide. It found that Ainuhouseholds had, on average, an annual incomeof 3.56 million yen: lower than the 4.41 millionyen average annual household income for thepopulation of Hokkaido as a whole, which inturn was lower than the annual averagehousehold income of 5.67 million yen for thetotal population of Japan. The survey also foundthat a disproportionately large percentage ofAinu (27.5%) work in the generally low-wagefarming, forestry and fishing sector (comparedwith a figure of 7.4% for Hokkaido as awhole). 9 Although the number of Ainucompleting high school had increased, it wasstill substantially below the national level, andwhile around 50% of young Japanese peopleoverall attend university, the figure forHokkaido Ainu as of 2009 was just 21%. Over50% of Ainu under the age of thirty whoresponded to the survey stated that they wouldhave liked to attend university, but cited‘financial difficulties’ as the main reason forbeing unable to fulfil this ambition.10 Thesurvey discussed the range of social welfaremeasures which national and local governmenthas developed since the 1970s (includingeducational scholarships and loans for housingimprovements, as well as support for culturalpromotion) but noted that the budget for theseschemes had been cut back over the past fewyears. The final question in the survey askedrespondents to select five out of twelvesuggested measures which they would mostlike to see incorporated into future Ainu policy.In response, the largest percentage (51%)chose improved educational support for Ainuyoung people, followed by ‘the creation of asociety where human rights are respected andAinu do not suffer racial discrimination’ (50%),‘improvement of Ainu employment measures’(43%) and ‘the teaching of Ainu language andculture in schools’ (33%).11

Meanwhile, an Advisory Council for FutureAinu Policy (including just one Ainu member)had been created under the chairmanship ofKyoto University legal expert Satō Kōji. Itsreport, issued in 2009, provided a lengthyhistorical examination of the process by whichAinu people had been deprived of their lands,resources, language and cultural traditions,and emphasized the need to ‘face up to’ thishistory, without specifically calling for anofficial apology or compensation. But, althoughit proposed new measures to improve publicunderstanding of Ainu culture and history andstressed the importance of access to naturalresources as an element in protecting andtransmitting traditional culture, the reportwent on to recommend policies which remainedfirmly focused on the cultural dimensions ofAinu life.

As Uemura Hideaki and Jeffry Gayman haveemphasized, the approach to Ainu rightsembodied in the 2009 report relied on theargument that Article 13 of the JapaneseConstitution already protects the rights ofindividual citizens, including the right of Ainuindividuals, to choose their way of life, so longas this ‘does not interfere with the publicwelfare’. This protection is presented asproviding a basis for a distinctively ‘Japaneseapproach’ to the issue of indigenous rights. Butthis conceptual basis of the Japanesegovernment’s approach to Ainu policy is deeplyproblematic because it is devoid of any explicitrecognition of the group rights of indigenouscommunities: the recognition that is central tothe United Nations Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples.12 Building on the basis ofthis ‘Japanese model of indigenous rights’, thecore proposal of the 2009 report was theestablishment of a ‘Symbolic Space for EthnicHarmony’ [Minzoku Kyōsei Shōchō Kūkan],where ‘many people would come together toobtain a broader and deeper understanding andexperience of Ainu culture’.13 This SymbolicSpace, the report suggested, would ‘be asymbol of the fact that our country, facing the

APJ | JF 16 | 21 | 2

4

future, will build a society with the vitality of adiverse and rich culture which respects thedignity of indigenous people and is withoutdiscrimination’. 14

Designing the Symbolic Space

The report of the Advisory Council provided thestarting point for a further eight years ofdeliberation about Ainu policy, during whichthe rather abstract concept of a SymbolicSpace for Ethnic Harmony was given concreteform, in every sense of the word. The maindeliberations were conducted by a fourteen-member Council for Ainu Policy Promotion[Ainu Seisaku Suishin Kaigi], set up in 2010,and a ten-member Policy Promotion WorkingGroup [Seisaku Suishin Sagyō Bukai], whichwas created in 2011 and reports to the Council.Both bodies include a number of Ainuparticipants, but the majority of members onboth are non-Ainu, and both have non-Ainuchairs. (The Council for Ainu Policy Promotionis chaired by the government’s Chief CabinetSecretary, currently Suga Yoshihide, with theVice Minister of the Cabinet Office as DeputyChair.)15 In parallel with their deliberations, anumber of reports on various aspects of thescheme were produced by Japanesegovernment ministries and assorted sub-committees.

One positive aspect of this process was that itrecognized the previously rather neglectedpresence of Ainu in parts of Japan other thanHokkaido. The president of the Kantō UtariAssociation is a member of the Council, and asubcommittee of the Council conducted thefirst small survey of 153 Ainu householdsoutside Hokkaido, covering families as far awayas Kyushu and Okinawa. This found types ofsocial disadvantage similar to those found bythe Hokkaido University survey, although it isdifficult to draw any firm conclusions from itsfindings, since the total number of Ainu livingoutside Hokkaido is unknown, which makes it

impossible to determine how well the samplesurveyed represented the population as awhole.16

The main negative aspect of the complexdeliberation process, on the other hand, wasthe fact that it failed to create a meaningfulway of listening to and incorporating theconcerns of the Ainu community at large (apoint to which I shall return shortly). Between2011 and 2012 a Working Group on theSymbolic Space for Ethnic Harmony producedan outline plan for the Space, and this was thenfurther reworked and refined by sub-committees and by government officials,culminating in a revised and more detailedmaster plan and architectural design whichwas adopted by the Council in 2016. 17 TheSpace is to be constructed on the site of theformer Ainu Museum at Poroto Kotan, nearShiraoi (which was created in the 1960s andclosed in March 2018). It will consist of threeelements: a National Ainu Museum [KokuritsuAinu Minzoku Hakubutsukan], a NationalEthnic Harmony Park [Kokuritsu MinzokuKyōsei Kōen] and a Resting Place [IreiShisetsu] for the remains of the dead(discussed further below), and will be openedin April 2020 – in other words, as reports onthe project repeatedly stress, just in time forthe 2020 Tokyo Olympics.

Design for the Symbolic Space for Ethnic

APJ | JF 16 | 21 | 2

5

Harmony

(Source: Ainu Seisaku Shuishin Kaigi, ‘Dai-10Kai Ainu Seisaku Suishin Kaigi Seisaku SuishinSagyō Buka i Hōkoku Kanke i Sh i ryō(https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/ainusuishin/da i 1 0 / s i r y o u 1 _ 3 . p d f ) ’ )(https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/ainusuishin/dai10/siryou1_3.pdf))

The design, indeed, is rather reminiscent of thedramatic modernist architecture that we havecome to associate with the Olympic Games. Itwill feature four massive concrete structures onthe shores of Lake Poroto. The centrepiece willbe the ferro-concrete Ainu Museum, toweringabove the much more modest reconstructedtraditional Ainu houses that will cluster at oneside of the complex. To its west will be two‘experience halls’ where visitors can see andparticipate in traditional Ainu cultural events,and to its east, the stern concrete cube of theResting Place, accompanied by an obelisk-likemonument adorned with Ainu-style motifs. (seeFigures 1 and 2) In addition to its officialJapanese name, the site will have an Ainulanguage ‘nickname’ to be chosen through apublic competition. Official statements on theproject repeatedly stress that the SymbolicSpace is expected to attract one million visitorsa year. The aims of the Space are described asbeing to ‘create a focus for promotingwidespread national understanding at all levelsof Ainu history and culture, and looking to thefuture, to create a focus which will link to thetransmission of Ainu culture and the creationand development of new Ainu culture’.18

The complex is under the control of theJapanese government. The Cultural Bureau ofthe Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,Science and Technology (MEXT) is responsiblefor the Ainu Museum, while the Ministry of

Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism(MLIT) has overall responsibility for the parkand memorial, and the two ministries shareresponsibility for cultural training andexchange, publicity and other aspects.19 Day-to-day running of the project has been entrustedto a new Ainu Ethnic Cultural Foundation [AinuMinzoku Bunka Zaidan], created by mergingthe old Foundation for Research and Promotionof Ainu Culture with the management structureof the old Shiraoi Ainu Museum. There will alsobe a management committee, whosemembership is yet to be determined.20 It isworth noting that the old Shiraoi Ainu Museum,which had been created in the 1960s by thelocal community itself, operated under a moreflexible set of rules, while the new NationalAinu Museum is firmly under state control andwill be subject to higher levels of governmentscrutiny. 2 1 The public tenders for theconstruction of major elements of the site wereopened in April 2018.22

Perhaps the most striking feature of theconvoluted process which produced the designof the Symbolic Space was the large amount ofinput from government ministries and non-Ainupublic cultural institutions in various parts ofJapan, and the limited input from Ainuthemselves. Of the major reports on aspects ofthe project produced between 2012 and 2017,three were written by committees set up by thetwo ministries which will have overall control ofthe Symbolic Space, and four others werewritten directly by the ministries themselves.Ainu committee members had some input intothe former, but it was the same small circle offive or six Ainu names which repeatedlyappeared on the committee membership lists.The three names that recur most frequentlybelong to senior off icials of the AinuAssociation of Hokkaido.23 This body, which hasexisted under changing titles since 1946, is thelargest single Ainu organization, and hasbecome the conduit through which keyelements of state welfare and scholarshipsupport are distributed to Ainu individuals, but

APJ | JF 16 | 21 | 2

6

its membership in 2016 was only around 2,300:in other words, some 80–90% of the recognizedAinu population do not have any input into thepolicies of the Association. It is, therefore, not arepresentative body for the community as awhole, and there is indeed no overallrepresentative body for the Ainu community.The problem of very restricted consultation,with a handful of non-elected people beingtreated as though they were representatives ofthe entire Ainu community, is not a newphenomenon. It dates back at least to the 1997establishment of the Foundation for Researchand Promotion of Ainu Culture, of which oneresearcher observes:

The Ministry [of Education] failedto appoint Ainu in a fair andrepresentative fashion. Localtensions were ignited whendecision making appeared to restin the hands of Hokkaido elites,many of whom did double duty asdirectors in the [Ainu Associationof Hokkaido].24

It was only after the 2016 detailed master planwas put in place – and seven years after thestart of its deliberations on the overall shape offuture Ainu policy – that the Council for AinuPolicy Promotion’s working party undertookconsultation with members of the wider Ainucommunity. The consultations began inDecember 2017, lasted for three months, andinvolved closed-door discussion sessionsattended by 286 Ainu people in various parts ofHokkaido. Despite this small-scale andattenuated process, the consultations seem tohave stimulated lively debate and generated arange of interesting suggestions for the futureof Ainu policy. The main proposals put forwardby participants included a call for the status ofAinu as indigenous people to be enshrined inlaw; a demand for Ainu to be given rights ofaccess to state owned land; proposals fortraditional fishing rights to be restored, spaces

for traditional life practices to be created in allparts of Hokkaido, and support to be providedfor autonomous economic and social activities;and a call for Ainu human remains removed byanthropologists, archaeologists and others tobe returned. There were also pleas for theteaching of Ainu language and culture inschools; for stronger measures to promote theeducation of Ainu children and young people;for improved financial support to Ainu farming,fishing and forestry activities; for enhancedwelfare for elderly Ainu; and for futurediscussions about Ainu policy to pay properattention to questions of gender and regionalbalance. Some participants in the consultationsessions called for an official apology from theJapanese government for the long history ofAinu dispossession and the destruction of Ainusociety and culture.25

The Council for Ainu Policy Promotion’sworking party report, which was adopted bythe Council two months after the end of theconsultation process, fails even to discuss thegreat majority of these suggestions. The firsttwo-thirds of the report provide further detailabout the plans for the Symbolic Space forEthnic Harmony, while the remaining threepages deal with the likely outlines of a newAinu law as a whole. The report notes that theconsultation process highlighted the diversityof opinions in the Ainu community. It thenannounces that in future the focus of Ainupolicy will be expanded from ‘aspects ofwelfare’ to ‘a wide initiative embracingregional development, industrial developmentand international exchange’.26 Given theoverwhelming focus of the report’s content onthe Symbolic Space, it is clear from the contextthat, if ‘industrial development’ has anymeaning, it refers primarily to the tourismindustry. The report goes on to state that theproposals from the consultation process shouldbe considered together with the proposal forthe Symbolic Space for Ethnic Harmonyinitiative, and that an Ainu Law should beenacted as soon as possible to ‘put into effect

APJ | JF 16 | 21 | 2

7

those policies which are most effective andhave the highest possibility of being realised’.27

The unmistakable implication here is that callsfor things like an official apology, access rightsto state land, restoration of fishing rights, anAinu autonomy fund, or even expanded welfarefor the elderly are viewed by the Council ashaving a low ‘possibility of being realized’, andhave been excluded from the agenda, while theSymbolic Space of Harmony and a handful ofrelated cultural tourism activities have beenselected as ‘effective’ and ‘realistic’. There is,indeed an interesting oxymoron in the report’sformulation. Since it is the government whoultimately decides which proposals are to berealized, the ‘highest possibility of realization’criterion gives the state almost endless scopeto decide what to include or exclude. Thereport ends with a few further proposals,including a plan to display Ainu culturalsymbols at Chitose Airport ‘in collaborationwith private industry in the lead up to theopening of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics and theSymbolic Space for Ethnic Harmony’. There isalso a promise to develop a promotional Ainuculture tourist video associated with theopening of the Space, and to examine theinclusion of new material on Ainu in schooltextbooks.28 But the nature of the material onAinu history and society to be included infuture textbooks remains unclear. One ofJapan’s eight approved textbook publishers hasrecently expanded its coverage of traditionalAinu culture within the junior high schoolethics curriculum, but elsewhere there hasbeen little change so far.29

The release of the Council on Ainu Policy’s2018 report was welcomed by some senior Ainufigures particularly by those in areas whichhave substantial Ainu tourism sectors. Otherresponses, though, were more pessimistic. Forexample, Sasamura Ritsuko, who heads an Ainucultural study group in Obihiro, observes, ‘Ireally hope that they mobilize Ainu culturemore in local development schemes’, but goes

on to note that the new law will not incorporatewelfare measures for the elderly because of aperception that it would be ‘difficult to obtainpublic understanding’ for such measures. Shethen comments: ‘I just wish they would face upto the history in which [Ainu people] werepushed into poverty by discrimination’.30 Othercriticisms were harsher. The Citizens’ Councilto Examine Ainu Policy [Ainu Seisaku KentōShimin Kaigi], a civil society group whichcontains both Ainu and non-Ainu members,presented Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga with astatement protesting the way in which thegovernment was pushing ahead with the newlaw: ‘this government-centred process does notapproach Ainu as a people who should have aninherent right to self-determination. Rather, itis a colonialist process which only listens toopinion from one side of the debates, and it isno exaggeration to describe it as tramplingunderfoot the UN Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous People’.31 The Citizens’ Council,meanwhile, had put together its own interimreport – Let us Realise an Indigenous PeoplesPolicy that Meets International Standards[Seikai Hyōjun no Senjū Minzoku Seisaku oJitsugen Shiyou! – containing a range ofalternative policy proposals (discussed furtherin the following section).

Haunting the Symbolic Space

There is little dispute about the importance ofgiving the Japanese public and internationalvisitors to Japan a deeper understanding ofAinu history and culture. The Symbolic Spacefor Ethnic Harmony could contribute to thatunderstanding, as well as creating employmentopportunities for Ainu people and opportunitiesto pass on traditional cultural knowledge to thenext generation. It is not surprising, then, thatthe initiative has been welcomed by someobservers, both Ainu and non-Ainu. But thecriticism expressed by other members of theAinu community reflects frustration at the lack

APJ | JF 16 | 21 | 2

8

of widespread consultation, and deep concernthat a process which began as a search for anew policy on indigenous rights appears tohave morphed into a state controlled culturaltourism scheme.

The very name ‘Symbolic Space for EthnicHarmony’ begs large questions. Is the ‘ethnicharmony’ that the Space symbolizes a nobleaspiration or a comforting illusion? In otherwords, will the displays of Ainu culture andhistory within the Space not only celebrate thebeauty and richness of Ainu tradition, but alsoface up to painful legacies of colonization,dispossession and discrimination, therebyinaugurating a serious commitment toovercoming those legacies in order to achievefuture ethnic harmony? Or will the Spacepresent a ‘cosmetic multicultural’ image,conveying to viewers the message that ethnicharmony has been achieved, or perhaps eventhat it has existed from time immemorial?Given the diverse range of ethnic groups inJapan, the title of the Space also begs so farunanswered questions about the ways in whichthe relationship between Ainu and groups likeOkinawans, Zainichi Koreans and otherminorities will be presented. Will the museum,for example, touch on the story of the help thatsome Ainu communities gave during the Asia-Pacific War to Korean forced labourers whohad escaped from labour sites in Hokkaido?32

The brief descriptions of the future exhibitssuggest that the National Ainu Museum will notpresent a single static ‘Ainu culture’, but willtry to link past to present. The plan for theMuseum envisages six main exhibition spaces,equipped with the latest augmented realitytechnology and labelled ‘Our Language’, ‘OurWorld’, ‘Our Life’, ‘Our History’, ‘Our Work’and ‘Our Interaction’. Of these, ‘Our History’,will present visitors with a story that extendsfrom ‘the Old Stone Age to the present day’,while in ‘Our Work’ will show how ‘traditionalculture, even though it changes, is passeddown to the present’.33 It seems clear that the

museum will highlight the ways in whichtraditional Ainu culture is being refashioned innew media through creative works like hybridAinu rock music or the highly popular mangaseries Golden Kamuy, which (although writtenby a non-Ainu author) introduces readers toimportant elements of traditional Ainu life.

But deeper public understanding of and respectfor Ainu people also requires an understandingthat proud Ainu identity may exist in the mindsand hearts of people even when they are notperforming in visibly ‘indigenous’ or ‘cultural’ways. And that type of understanding can onlybe achieved when the discrimination anddisadvantages faced by Ainu in everyday lifeare tackled, so that non-Ainu Japanese, as amatter of course, can have an opportunity toencounter people who proudly identify as Ainuwhile working in offices, teaching in schools oruniversities, treating patients in hospitals,presenting the news on TV, serving on localand national government assemblies, workingin factories, and so on. Depending how theSymbolic Space is developed, it could becomeone small step in the long journey to thissecond form of understanding. But the plan asit stands risks, on the contrary, reinforcing anarrow form of recognition that perceives Ainuidentity only in the performance of traditionalor neo-traditional culture in spaces of spectacleand entertainment set aside from the world ofeveryday life.

Important questions about the representationof Ainu history remain to be addressed, both inrelation to the displays within the SymbolicSpace and to the proposed revision oftextbooks. Will the history displayed in theSymbolic Space of Ethnic Harmony, andincluded in textbooks, remind visitors of theremoval of Hokkaido Ainu villages to less fertileand accessible locations, and the banning oftheir hunting and fishing livelihoods, to makeway for the coming of Japanese colonists? Willit confront issues like the stories of theSakhalin Ainu (also known as Enchiw) who

APJ | JF 16 | 21 | 2

9

were shifted to Japan in 1875 when Japantransferred control of their homeland to Russia,and were then forcibly removed to Tsuishikari,on the outskirts of Sapporo, where many soondied from epidemics of smallpox, measles,cholera and other diseases whose impact wasaggravated by the effects of life in a crowdedand unfamiliar environment?34 (So far, thedeliberations of the Council have in fact saidnothing at all about the Ainu of Sakhalin andthe Kuril Islands, most of whom moved toHokkaido when their land was again lost toRussia at the end of the Asia Pacific War.) Willit tell the story of the Ainu recruited in the 19th

and early 20th century to be sent for ‘display’ ininternational expositions at home andoverseas?35 And how will the history told in thenew National Ainu Museum relate to theResting Place next door, destined to house the‘repatriated’ bones of Ainu whose remains, inthe nineteenth and early to mid-twentiethcenturies, were torn from their resting placesby researchers and collectors and taken awayto universities and museums around Japan andbeyond?36 According to government estimates,the remains of at least 1600 individuals are stillheld by Japanese universities37, with many morein institutions overseas.

This Resting Place has evoked particularcontroversy amongst the Ainu community.Throughout the period when the new Ainupolicy was being formulated, a group of Ainufrom Urakawa and other small Hokkaido townswere fighting for the return of ancestralremains which were taken without permissionfrom their community graveyards, some ofthem within living memory, by researchersfrom Hokkaido University and other academicinstitutions. In March 2016, after taking theissue to court, some members of the groupfinally reached a settlement with the university,and succeeded in returning the remains oftwelve people to Kineusu, near Urakawa, forreburial. This helped to open the way for therepatriation of other remains to communities inUrahoro, Monbetsu and Kineusu in 2017.

Further struggles for the return of remains tothe Urakawa area are currently being playedout in the Japanese courts. For members of thesmall Kotan Association [Kotan no Kai], whichhas been playing a central role in thesestruggles, repatriation of remains means thereturn of the bones of the dead to the earth, asnear as possible to the place from which theywere taken, in accordance with Ainu tradition.Even though there can be no perfectly‘traditional’ ceremony to accompany thisreturn, the Kotan Association has tried as far aspossible to treat the dead with the respectgiven to them in Ainu custom. For them, theidea that Ainu remains are to be ‘repatriated’ toa concrete mausoleum in a major tourismcomplex under the control of the JapaneseMinistry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, andTourism is anathema, and is indeed notrepatriation at all, but merely the shifting oft h e d e a d f r o m o n e a l i e n s p a c e t oanother.38 Karafuto Ainu descendants are alsoconcerned about the prospects for the return ofthe remains of their ancestors, and in June2018 created a new ‘Assoc ia t ion o fDescendants of Deceased Enchiw’ [EnchiuIzokukai] to confront the issue.39

Design for the Memorial Building to HouseAinu Human Remains ‘Repatriated’ fromPublic Institutions at Home and Abroad

APJ | JF 16 | 21 | 2

10

(Source: Ainu Seisaku Shuishin Kaigi, ‘Dai-10Kai Ainu Seisaku Suishin Kaigi Seisaku SuishinSagyō Buka i Hōkoku Kanke i Sh i ryō(https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/ainusuishin/da i 1 0 / s i r y o u 1 _ 3 . p d f ) ’ )(https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/ainusuishin/dai10/siryou1_3.pdf))

The May 2018 report of the Council for AinuPolicy Promotion working party calls onmuseums and universit ies to releaseinformation about Ainu remains in theircollections as soon as possible, so that relativesor community groups can claim those remains,but states that remains which have not beenclaimed within six months, or those whichcannot immediately be returned to theircommunities, should be interred in the newResting Place within the Symbolic Space. Butinternational experience suggests that this timeframe is completely unrealistic. Prolongedstruggles over the repatriation of indigenousremains in other countries have led to growingacceptance of the notion that remains shouldbe returned to the cultural groups to whichthey are most closely affiliated, and that asingle national resting place is appropriate onlyw h e r e t h e o r i g i n s o f r e m a i n s a r eunknown.40 Such repatriation is an extremelycomplex process, fraught with pain andconflicting emotions. This process cannot beconstrained by bureaucratic deadlines becausethe tasks of identifying descendants andtraditional owners and establishing respectfulceremonies of return are challenging, andbecause (to cite Hawaiian repatriationcampaigner Edward Halealoha Ayau andCherokee activist Honor Keeler) ‘there is noestablished period of time by which humanskeletal remains lose their humanity andbecome property’.41 In this context the KotanAssociation, whose president – Shimizu Yūji – isalso a board member of the Citizens’ Council to

Examine Ainu Policy, calls for an apology frommuseums and universities which participated inthe removal of Ainu remains from gravesites,and for a policy focused on returning remainsto their original locality with ceremonies thatas far as possible follow Ainu tradition.42

Particular unease is evoked by anothersuggestion in the Council for Ainu PolicyPromotion’s 2018 report: that academicresearchers, provided they undertake a yet-undefined consultation process, may still beable to gain access to the human remainsenshrined in the Symbolic Space memorial fortheir personal research projects.43 The issue ofidentifying descendants and traditional ownersis crucial here, as it is in the case of the returnof indigenous remains. Many internationalbodies and national governments now haveclear rules on the community consultationswhich must precede and accompany theacademic study of the bodies of indigenouspeople, living or dead. For example, both a1996 report by UNESCO’s InternationalBioethics Committee and a document issued bythe UN Commission on Human Rights in 1998emphasize that, in human genome research onindigenous populations, approval from nationalgovernments must be ‘complemented byconsent from the individuals/local groupsselected for the study, whether the consent isobtained directly or through formal/informalleadership, group representatives or trustedintermediaries. Consent would need to beobtained from the most appropriate persons,taking into account the group’s socials t ruc ture , va lues , l aws , goa l s andaspirations’.44 Consent, in this context, is not aone-off formality, but an ongoing process. Inthe words of the code of ethics adopted by theA m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n o f P h y s i c a lAnthropologists in 2003: ‘it is understood thatthe informed consent process is dynamic andcontinuous; the process should be initiated inthe project design and continue throughimplementation by way of dialogue andnegotiation with those studied.45

APJ | JF 16 | 21 | 2

11

In Japan, the Anthropological Society ofNippon, the Ainu Association of Hokkaido, theJapan Archaeological Association and theMinistry of Education are currently cooperatingin an exploration of ways to conduct researchon indigenous remains and burial goods. Oneoutcome of this exploration has been publishedin the official journal of the AmericanAssociation of Physical Anthropologists, in theform of a paper by Japanese scholars outliningthe results of DNA tests on the skeletal remainsof 115 Ainu people. The remains are held inSapporo Medical University and Date CityInstitute of Funkawan Culture, and theresearchers gained the one-off consent of theAinu Association of Hokkaido at the start oftheir research project more than a decade ago.Although the provenance of all the remains isknown, the anthropologists involved did not atany point consult the local Ainu communitiesfrom which the skeletons originated. Some ofthose indigenous community members weredeeply shocked to read about the outcomes ofthe research, and raised their concerns inpublic in February 2017.46 The following month,without addressing these concerns, theresearchers’ submitted their article to theAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology forpublication, complete with assurances aboutethics and consent, and the article was dulypublished in January 2018.47 An open letterprotesting the research methods was sent byAinu community members and their supportersto the researchers’ academic institutions inMay 2018 but has, as of October 2018, failed toreceive a satisfactory response.48 If this isindicative of the ‘ways of studying Ainu skeletalremains and burial goods’ to be pursued underthe New Ainu Law, there are surely goodreasons for concern.

In addition to protesting vigorously about theuse of Ainu remains for DNA research withoutlocal community consent, the Citizens’ Councilto Examine Ainu Policy has put forward a rangeof proposals for new policies to restore Ainuresource rights, provide compensation for

misappropriated assets, and recognize thehistory and rights of Karafuto Enchiw andChishima Ainu, and for a law to recognize Ainuas an off icial language (to be used inregistration documents etc. alongsideJapanese) in Hokkaido.49 For example, Councilmember Hatakeyama Satoshi, who also headsthe Mombetsu Ainu Association [MombetsuAinu Kyōkai] highlights the irony of the factthat the Japanese government insists, in theteeth of strong international criticism, onasserting Japan’s right to continue ‘scientificwhaling’, while denying the right of Ainu tomaintain the indigenous whaling traditionswhich are permissible under internationallaw.50 Tazawa Mamoru, who is both a boardmember of the Citizens’ Council and Chair ofthe Karafuto Ainu Association [Karafuto AinuKyōkai] points out that, because of the complexhistory of multiple displacements of KarafutoAinu, it is extremely difficult for Enchiw/Karafuto Ainu even to document their ownorigins, which means that they are almostentirely excluded from enumerations of theAinu population. Tazawa emphasizes thatKarafuto Enchiw/Karafuto Ainu have as muchright to recognition under the terms of the UNDeclaration as any other indigenous group, andcalls on the Japanese government to providethat recognition.51 The Citizens’ Council alsoraises the long neglected issue of Ainu fishingcooperatives whose assets were placed understate control as part of Meiji assimilationistpolicy, and calls for the return of thoseassets.52 Yet there is no evidence to date thatthe Japanese government is paying anyattention to these dissenting voices. This raisescrucial questions about ‘representation’ in bothsenses of the word: which groups and opinionsare being represented in the planning of theSymbolic Space, and how will Ainu history andsociety themselves be represented in theSpace? These issues deserve particularattention because of extensive influence which(as we have seen) the government will wieldover the operations of the new National AinuMuseum and the Symbolic Space as a whole.

APJ | JF 16 | 21 | 2

12

Beyond the Space

The title of this article, ‘Performing EthnicHarmony’, is not intended to be wholly negativeor cynical. Performance matters. When bodiesperform, hearts and minds may sometimesfollow. Children who grow up visiting a sitewhere they learn about and experience thewealth and variety of Ainu culture may gainnew perspectives on the cultural and ethnicdiversity that has always existed in the spacewe call ‘Japan’. But indigenous tourism is atwo-edged sword. In the words of the 2012Larrakia Declaration on the Development ofIndigenous Tourism, ‘while tourism providesthe strongest driver to restore, protect andpromote indigenous cultures, it has thepotential to diminish and destroy those cultureswhen improperly used’. It was to avoid thepotentially destructive dimensions of tourismthat the Declaration went on to insist on theimportance of indigenous autonomy and controlin relation to tourism projects centred on theirculture: ‘indigenous peoples will determine theextent and nature and organizationalarrangements for their participation in tourismand ... governments and multilateral agencieswill support the empowerment of indigenouspeople.’53

There is another risk, too, associated withlarge-scale symbolic construction projectscarried out in the name of ethnic harmony. Assome critics of the project point out, when thegovernment spends large sums of money on‘Ainu projects’ whose tangible benefits reachonly a small section of the Ainu community, thiscreates a double bind for those who do not reapthe direct benefits of this spending. They areleft with little support to overcome thestruggles they face in everyday life, while thegeneral public is left with the impression thatlarge sums of taxpayers’ money are going tosupport Ainu ‘special privileges’ [tokken]: animpression which all too easily fuels right-wing

backlashes against minority rights. In thiscontext, it is worth remembering that, despite anumber racist campaigns attacking Ainu rightsin recent years, an Anti-Hate Speech lawenacted in Japan in 2016 limited its scope toforeign migrants in Japan, and provided noprotection for indigenous minorities such as theAinu.54 The government’s published statementson the future of Ainu policy also include noplans to extend the law to cover Japan’sindigenous people.

The social impact of the Symbolic Space forEthnic Harmony, then, will depend, not simplyon the exhibitions and performances that takeplace within the Space, but, much moreimportantly, on what happens to indigenousrights, culture and identity outside the Space,and how inside and outside are connected.State supported cultural tourism andmonument building projects can achievepositive results. But they do not restore lostland or resource rights, provide redress fordispossession, create opportunities forindigenous voices to be heard on the politicalstage, or support the education and welfare ofindigenous people who are not directly involvedin the project itself. Only conscious efforts toassure that cultural tourism is linked to redressand the creation of new opportunities forindigenous people can achieve such positiveresults.

In other words, the Symbolic Space for EthnicHarmony (together with the cultural eventsthat occur on its fringe) does not constitute anindigenous rights policy, and cannot be treatedas a substitute for one. If there is one lessonthat has been learnt from the pursuit ofindigenous rights around the world over thepast three decades or so, it is that the rightingof centuries of dispossession is a long andarduous process that requires commitment,sincerity and persistence on the part of bothstate and society. Even after steps have beentaken to put land or resource rights laws inplace, apologies have been made and funds

APJ | JF 16 | 21 | 2

13

have been allocated to promote autonomy ortackle inequalities, the results of those stepstake decades if not generations to be fully felt,and constant effort is needed to preventreversals caused by political backlash or simpleinertia. There are no viable short-cuts; thereare no quick fixes.

If the Symbolic Space for Ethnic Harmony isreally intended as a starting point of a longjourney of dialogue and policy-making toovercome injustice and secure recognition,rights and redress, then it could be a small stepin the right direction. But if it is used to restrictthe right of Ainu communities to demand thereturn of their dead, while privileging therights of non-Ainu researchers to use the deadas research material, then it will become asymbol of the enduring legacies of colonialscience. And if it is seen, and presented to theworld, as an endpoint – the culmination of thesearch for a new Ainu law, and a triumphaldeclaration to Japan and the world that Japan’sindigenous issues have been solved and ethnicharmony prevails – the Space and thesurrounding Olympic year performances will bea giant leap backwards for indigenous rights.

I would like to thank Jeff Gayman and ann-eliselewallen for their helpful comments on earlierdrafts of this article.

Related articles

Uemura Hideaki and Jeffry Gayman,Rethinking Japan’s Constitution from thePerspective of the Ainu and RyūkyūPeoples(https://apjjf.org/2018/5/Uemura.html)Ann-elise lewallen, Ainu Women andIndigenous Modernity in Colonial Japan (https://apjjf.org/2017/18/lewallen.html)

Komori Yoichi, Helen J.S. Lee andMichelle Mason, Rule in the Name ofProtection: The Japanese State, the Ainuand the Vocabulary of Colonialism(https://apjjf.org/2013/11/8/Komori-Yoichi/3903/article.html)Simon Cotterill, Ainu Success: thepolitical and Cultural Achievements ofJ a p a n ’ s I n d i g e n o u s M i n o r i t y(https://apjjf.org/-Simon-Cotterill/3500)Mark Winchester, On the Dawn of a NewNational Ainu Policy: The "‘Ainu' as aS i t u a t i o n " T o d a y .(https://apjjf.org/-Mark-Winchester/3234)Yukie Chiri and Kyoko Selden, The Songthe Owl God Himself Sang. "SilverDroplets Fall Fall All Around," an AinuTale (https://apjjf.org/-Chiri-Yukie/3026)Katsuya HIRANO, The Politics of ColonialTranslation: On the Narrative of the Ainua s a " V a n i s h i n g E t h n i c i t y "(https://apjjf.org/-Katsuya-HIRANO/3013)ann-elise lewallen, Indigenous at last!Ainu Grassroots Organizing and theIndigenous Peoples Summit in AinuM o s i r(https://apjjf.org/-ann_elise-lewallen/2971)Chisato "Kitty" O. Dubreuil, The Ainu andTheir Culture: A Critical Twenty-FirstC e n t u r y A s s e s s m e n t(https://apjjf.org/-Chisato__Kitty_-Dubreuil/2589)David McNeill , Oda Makoto, PakKyongnam, Tanaka Hiroshi, WilliamWetherall & Honda Katsuichi, The DieneReport on Discrimination and Racism inJ a p a n(https://apjjf.org/-Oda-Makoto/1882)Joshua Hotaka Roth, Political andCultural Perspectives on Japan's InsiderM i n o r i t i e s(https://apjjf.org/-Joshua-Roth/1723)

APJ | JF 16 | 21 | 2

14

Tessa Morris-Suzuki is Professor emerita of Japanese History at the Australian NationalUniversity. She is currently engaged in an Australian Research Council project entitled“Informal Life Politics in East Asia: From Cold War to post Cold War”. Her most recentpublications include The Living Politics of Self-Help Movements in East Asia(https://www.amazon.com/dp/9811063362/?tag=theasipacjo0b-20) (co-edited, 2017) and TheKorean War in Asia: A Hidden History(https://www.amazon.com/dp/1538111896/?tag=theasipacjo0b-20) (edited, 2018).

Notes1 Asahi Shinbun, 15 May 2018; Hokkaidō Shinbun, 15 May 2018; Ainu Seisaku Shuishin Kaigi,‘Dai-10 Kai Ainu Seisaku Suishin Kaigi Seisaku Suishin Sagyō Bukai Hōkoku(https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/ainusuishin/dai10/siryou1_2.pdf)’, 14 May 2018, (accessed27 May 2018).2 United Nations, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples(http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf), Geneva, United Nations,2008, (accessed 28 May 2018).3 United Nations, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, p. 2.4 See Richard Siddle, Race, Resistance and the Ainu of Japan, London and New York,Routledge, 1996, p. 184.5 Tahara Ryoko, ‘Genba kara Mita Ainu Shinpō no Mondaiten’, in Kayano Shigeru et al, AinuBunka o Keishō suru: Kayano Shigeru Ainu Bunka Kōza II, Tokyo, Sōfūkan, 1998, pp.162–166, quotation from pp. 163–164.6 As of 2010, 10 of the 17 members of the Foundation’s Board of Directors and 8 of the 18members of its Board of Councillors were Ainu; see Ann-Elise Lewallen, The Fabric ofIndigeneity: Ainu Identity, Gender, and Settler Colonialism in Japan, Albuquerque NM,University of New Mexico Press, 2016, p. 77.7 Center for Ainu and Indigenous Studies, University of Hokkaido, Living Conditions andConsciousness of Present-Day Ainu (http://www.cais.hokudai.ac.jp/english/pdf/1ainu_all.pdf),Sapporo, University of Hokkaido, 2010, p. 3 (accessed 26 May 2018).8 Center for Ainu and Indigenous Studies, Living Conditions and Consciousness of Present-Day Ainu, p. 153.9 Center for Ainu and Indigenous Studies, Living Conditions and Consciousness of Present-Day Ainu, pp. 33–35.10 Center for Ainu and Indigenous Studies, University of Hokkaido, Living Conditions andConsciousness of Present-Day Ainu, pp. 68–71.11 Center for Ainu and Indigenous Studies, Living Conditions and Consciousness of Present-Day Ainu, p. 170.12 See Uemura Hideaki and Jeffry Gayman, ‘Rethinking Japan’s Constitution from thePerspective of the Ainu and Ryūkyū Peoples’ (https://apjjf.org/2018/5/Uemura.html), The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, vol. 16, issue 5, no. 5, 1 March 2018 (accessed 30 March 2018).13 Advisory Council for Future Ainu Policy, ‘Final Report(https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/ainu/dai10/siryou1_en.pdf)’, July 2009, quotation from p. 27.

APJ | JF 16 | 21 | 2

15

14 Advisory Council for Future Ainu Policy, ‘Final Report’, p. 27 (I have adjusted the Englishtranslation on the basis of the Japanese original).15 For the membership of the committees, see ‘Ainu Seisaku Suishin Kaigi Meibo(https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/ainusuishin/meibo.pdf)’, and ‘Seisaku Suishin Sagyō Bukaini Tsuite(https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/ainusuishin/seisakusuishin/dai1/haifu_siryou.pdf)’, (bothaccessed 28 May 2018).16 Ainu Seisaku Suishin Kaigi, ‘“Hokkaidō-gai Ainu no Seikatsu Jittai Chōsa” Sagyō BukaiHōkokusho (https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/ainusuishin/jittaichousa/houkokusho.pdf)’, June2011. (accessed 28 May 2018).17 Ainu Seisaku Suishin Kaigi, ‘“Minzoku Kyōsei no Shōchō to naru Kūkan” Sagyō BukaiHōkokusho (https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/ainusuishin/shuchou-kukan/houkokusho.pdf)’,June 2011, (accessed 27 May 2018).18 Website of the Council for Ainu Policy Promotion(https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/ainusuishin/symbolic_space.html), (accessed 31 May 2018).19 Ainu Seisaku Shuishin Kaigi, ‘Dai-10 Kai Ainu Seisaku Suishin Kaigi Seisaku Suishin SagyōBukai Hōkoku Kankei Shiryō(https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/ainusuishin/dai10/siryou1_3.pdf)’, (accessed 28 May 2018),p. 2.20 Ainu Seisaku Shuishin Kaigi, ‘Dai-10 Kai Ainu Seisaku Suishin Kaigi Seisaku Suishin SagyōBukai Hōkoku’, p. 2.21 The old Shiraoi Ainu Museum was a ‘general incorporated foundation’ [ippan zaidan hōjin],while the new museum will be a more highly regulated ‘public interest incorporatedfoundation’ [kōeki zaidan hōjin].22 Kensetsu Tsūshin Shinpō, 20 April 2018.23 For further details of these reports and of committee memberships, see Website of theCouncil for Ainu Policy Promotion(https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/ainusuishin/symbolic_space.html).24 Lewallen, The Fabric of Indigeneity, p. 75.25 Ainu Seisaku Shuishin Kaigi, ‘Dai-10 Kai Ainu Seisaku Suishin Kaigi Seisaku Suishin SagyōBukai Hōkoku Kankei Shiryō’, p. 34.26 Ainu Seisaku Shuishin Kaigi, ‘Dai-10 Kai Ainu Seisaku Suishin Kaigi Seisaku Suishin SagyōBukai Hōkoku’, p 9.27 Ainu Seisaku Shuishin Kaigi, ‘Dai-10 Kai Ainu Seisaku Suishin Kaigi Seisaku Suishin SagyōBukai Hōkoku’, p. 9.28 Ainu Seisaku Shuishin Kaigi, ‘Dai-10 Kai Ainu Seisaku Suishin Kaigi Seisaku Suishin SagyōBukai Hōkoku’, pp. 10–11.29 Hokkaidō Shinbun, 28 March 2018. The publisher in question is Kyōiku Shuppan, whoseyear three junior high school ethics texts now include four pages of material about thetraditional Ainu relationship with nature and the concept of kamui within the Ainu beliefsystem.30 Hokkaidō Shinbun, 15 May 2018.31 Ainu Seisaku Kentō Shimin Kaigi, ‘Genzai no Ainu Seisaku no Susumekata nit suite noIkensho (https://ainupolicy.jimdo.com/)’, May 2018 (accessed 20 June 2018); Hokkaido

APJ | JF 16 | 21 | 2

16

Shinbun, 11 May 2018.32 See, for example, Seok Soon-hi, ‘Kindaiki Chōsenjin to Teijūka no Keitai Katei to AinuMinzoku: Awaji, Naruto kara Hidaka e no Ijū ni Kanshite’, Ajia Taiheiyō Rebyū [Asia PacificReview], no 12, 2015, pp. 17–26, particularly p. 23.33 Ainu Seisaku Shuishin Kaigi, ‘Dai-10 Kai Ainu Seisaku Suishin Kaigi Seisaku Suishin SagyōBukai Hōkoku Kankei Shiryō’, p. 9.34 See Karafuto Ainu-Shi Kenkyūkai ed., Tsuishikari no Ishibumi: Karafuto Ainu Kyosei Iju noRekishi, Sapporo, Hokkaidō Shuppan Kikaku Sentā, 1992; also Tazawa Mamoru, ‘KeishiSaretsuzukeru Enchiw’, in Ainu Seisaku Kentō Shimin Kaigi ed., Seikai Hyōjun no SenjūMinzoku Seisaku o Jitsugen Shiyou! Sapporo, Ainu Seisaku Kentō Shimin Kaigi, 2018, p. 9;Karafuto Ainu commonly refer to themselves as ‘Enchiw’, a word which, like ‘Ainu’, means‘person; human being’.35 See, for example, Morris Low, ‘Physical Anthropology in Japan: The Ainu and the Search forthe Origins of the Japanese’, Current Anthropology, vol. 53, supplement 5, 2012, pp. 57–68,particularly pp. 60–61.36 See Ueki Tetsuya, Gakumon no Bōryoku: Ainu Bochi wa naze Abakareta ka, Yokohama,Shunpūsha, 2008.37 NHK News, 31 March 2016.38 Kotan Association / Hokkaido University Information Research Disclosure Group, AncestralRepatriation 85 Years Later: Ainu Ancestral Remains Return to Kineusu Kotan, documentaryfilm, dir. Tomoaki Fujino, 2017; Shimizu Yūji, ‘Ainu Ikotsu no Songen aru Henkan no tame ni’,in Ainu Seisaku Kentō Shimin Kaigi ed., Seikai Hyōjun no Senjū Minzoku Seisaku o JitsugenShiyou! p. 8; presentation by Shimizu Yūji and Kuzuno Tsugio at the International Workshop‘The Long Journey Home: The Repatriation of Indigenous Remains across the Frontiers ofAsia and the Pacific’, Canberra, Australian National University, 7–8 May 2018.39 Mainichi Shinbun, 4 June 2018.40 For example, the US Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA),passed in 1990, states that remains should be returned to the lineal descendants of the dead,or, if descendants cannot be identified, to the indigenous group from whose land they weretaken, or the indigenous group which can claim the closest cultural affiliation to the remains;In Australia, where issues of repatriation are also central to the indigenous rights struggle,the government’s Advisory Committee for Indigenous Repatriation – all of whose members areAboriginal or Torres Strait Island people – produced a 2014 report on an Australian NationalResting Place for indigenous remains which emphasised that this should only be for remainsabout which nothing is known except the fact that they come from Australia. In all othercases, remains should be returned to their communities of origin or, if these are unknown, toinstitutions in the region from which they came, which should continue the task of trying toidentify the communities of origin; Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act[2006 edition] (accessed 22 June 2018); Advisory Committee for Indigenous Repatriation,National Resting Place Consultation Report, 2014(https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/FHPL_NAGPRA.pdf), Canberra, Commonwealth ofAustralia, 2015.41 Edward Halealoha Ayau and Honor Keeler, ‘Injustice, Human Rights, and IntellectualSavagery: A Review’, H/Soz/Kult Kommunikation und Fachinformation für die

APJ | JF 16 | 21 | 2

17

Geschichtswissenschaften (https://www.hsozkult.de/debate/id/diskussionen-3987), April2017 (accessed 22 June 2018).42 Shimizu Yūji, ‘Ainu Ikotsu no Songen aru Henkan no tame ni’.43 Ainu Seisaku Shuishin Kaigi, ‘Dai-10 Kai Ainu Seisaku Suishin Kaigi Seisaku Suishin SagyōBukai Hōkoku’, pp. 6–8.44 See United Nations Economic and Social Council, Commission on Human Rights, ‘StandardSetting Activities: Evolution of Standards Concerning the Rights of Indigenous Peoples –Human Genome Diversity Researcn and Indigenous Peoples’, 4 June 1998,E/CN.4/Sub.2/AC.4/1998/4, p. 11.45 ‘Code of Ethics of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists(http://physanth.org/documents/3/ethics.pdf)’, 25 April 2003.46 Kyōdō Tsūshin News, 26 February 2017.47 Noboru Adachi, Tsuneo Kakuda, Ryohei Takahashi, Hideaki Kanzawa-Kiriyama and Ken-ichiShinoda, ‘Ethnic Derivation of the Ainu Inferred from Ancient Mitochondrial DNA Data’,American Journal of Physical Anthropology, vol. 165, issue 1, January 2018, pp. 139–148.48 See the letter of protest sent by Shimizu Yūji, Tonohira Yoshihiko, Ogawa Ryūkichi andothers to the University of Yamanashi and the National Museum of Nature and Science on 14May 2018. As well as raising questions about the lack of informed consent from the relevantAinu communities, this letter questioned the researchers’ crucial assumption that theskeletons they studied were all of people buried during the Edo period (1603–1868).Documents relating to over 30 skeletons from a graveyard in Urakawa indicate that the Ainuskeletons unearthed from that site are modern (post-1868). In July 2018 the National Museumof Nature and Science and the University of Yamanashi sent two separate but identical repliesto the letter of protest, without adequately addressing the issues raised. They stated that theresearch was conducted ‘in a manner that, as of 2007, was thought to respect indigenousrights. Thereafter we carried out [the research] without fundamentally altering our approach,which we consider also conforms to government policies’. This statement is clearly at oddswith the ethical approaches set out by UN bodies in the 1990s and by bodies like theAmerican Association of Physical Anthropologists well before 2007. For copies of the letter ofprotest and the two replies, see here(http://hmjk.world.coocan.jp/sapporoikadaigaku/questions20180514.html) (accessed 24October 2018).49 See Ainu Seisaku Kentō Shimin Kaigi ed., Seikai Hyōjun no Senjū Minzoku Seisaku oJitsugen Shiyou!50 Hatakeyama Satoshi, ‘Umi no Shigen ni taisuru Kenri’, in Ainu Seisaku Kentō Shimin Kaigied., Seikai Hyōjun no Senjū Minzoku Seisaku o Jitsugen Shiyou! p. 15.51 Tazawa Mamoru, ‘Keishi Saretsuzukeru Enchiw’, in Ainu Seisaku Kentō Shimin Kaigi ed.,Seikai Hyōjun no Senjū Minzoku Seisaku o Jitsugen Shiyou! p. 9.52 Inoue Katsuo, ‘Mikan no Ainu Minzoku Kyōyū Zaisan Mondai’, in Ainu Seisaku Kentō ShiminKaigi ed., Seikai Hyōjun no Senjū Minzoku Seisaku o Jitsugen Shiyou! p. 7.53 ‘The Larrakia Declaration on the Development of Indigenous Tourism(http://www.winta.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/The-Larrakia-Declaration.pdf)’, March2012 (accessed 25 May 2018).54 Craig Martin, ‘Striking the Right Balance: Hate Speech Laws in Japan, the United States

APJ | JF 16 | 21 | 2

18

and Canada’, Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, vol. 45, no 3, Spring 2018, pp. 455–532,citation from p. 468.