Realising Ainu indigenous rights: a commentary on Hiroshi Maruyama's ‘Japan's post-war Ainu policy. Why the Japanese Government has not recognised Ainu indigenous rights?’

Nakamura, Naohiro

doi:10.1017/s0032247413000417

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Maruyama (2013) asked the important question, "[w]hy has the Japanese government not recognized Ainu Indigenous rights?". Nakamura (2014aNakamura ( , 2014b argued that legal and democratic issues prevent Indigenous rights from being implemented in Japan. In particular, conceptual and constitutional issues regarding the inclusion of Indigenous rights within the Japanese legal framework and the lack of support from the majority population represent important challenges.…”

Section: The Ainu In Contemporary Japanmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The draft was prepared within the Utari Association by a commission of eight Ainu and two Wajin, a civil servant sent by the Hokkaido Prefecture, and a former editorial writer for the Hokkaido Newspaper (Kawashima, 2004). The Ainu New Law was relatively progressive, including rights related to political representation and participation at both the national and local level, measures against socioeconomic discrimination, economic benefits based on the idea of compensation for historical dispossession through a fund that would be administered by the Ainu themselves, and the establishment of a national body for Ainu policies (Siddle, 2002;Ishikida, 2005a;Nakamura, 2014a). The New Law essentially aimed at reframing the relationship between the Ainu and the state in the context of the rise of international human rights (Watson, 2014a(Watson, , 2014b.…”

Section: Institutional Opportunities and Legal Mobilizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Ainu and Indigenous politics in Japan: negotiating agency, institutional stability, and change

Komai

2021

J. Race Ethnicity Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In April 2019, the Japanese government officially legally recognized the Ainu as Indigenous people. Building on an institutionalist framework, the paper suggests that a phenomenon of institutional layering has taken place, resulting in tensions between the desire to preserve the legitimacy of old institutions and the pressure to develop more progressive policies. To explain this process, policy legacies, and institutional opportunities are relevant. First, the narrative that equality can be attained through assimilation, and the political construction of the “Ainu problem” as a regional one tied to Hokkaido pervade political imaginaries and institutions. Second, institutional opportunities have mediated the ways activists have sought to make their voices heard in the political arena. A focus on key historical segments illuminates the difficulty for activists to penetrate high-level political arenas while indicating the importance of agency, ties and interests in explaining major reforms and their limitations. The ambiguity that characterizes current policy framework points to the potential leverage that this policy configuration represents for the Ainu. At the same time, historical and institutional legacies that have shaped Indigenous politics continue to constrain, to a great extent, the possibilities for meaningful and transformative developments for the Ainu.

show abstract

Section: The Ainu In Contemporary Japanmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Institutional Opportunities and Legal Mobilizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Ainu and Indigenous politics in Japan: negotiating agency, institutional stability, and change

Komai

2021

J. Race Ethnicity Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the Ainu Association of Hokkaido is the largest Ainu organisation, membership is voluntary and less than half of the total Ainu population are members. The fundamental philosophy of the constitution of Japan is to guarantee individual rights and equality under the law, and it does not always agree with the recognition of collective or indigenous rights (Nakamura 2014). With regards to repatriation, unlike Native Americans under NAGPRA, which recognises cultural affiliation to decide ‘which person or group of persons shall be the owner, possessor, or steward of an object’ (emphasis added, Kuprecht 2012: 38), the collective ownership by the Ainu as an indigenous people is not always recognised under the law.…”

Section: Intentional Excavations Of Ainu Graveyardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural affiliation is not enough: the repatriation of Ainu human remains

Nakamura¹

2017

Polar Record

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The challenges faced by indigenous peoples in repatriation negotiations vary across the globe. In 2012, three Ainu individuals launched a legal case against Hokkaido University, demanding the return of the human remains of nine individuals and a formal apology for having conducted intentional excavations of Ainu graveyards, stolen the remains and infringed upon their rights to perform ceremonies of worship. This action marked the first of such legal cases in Japan. The Ainu experienced both legal and ethical challenges during negotiations with the university; for example, while the claimants applied the Ainu concept kotan as a legal argument for collective ownership of the remains, Hokkaido University claimed the lack of assumption of rights relating to worship under the Civil Code of Japan. There has been significant progress recently on repatriation, mainly due to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act in the US, and several meaningful recommendations have been made to ease the repatriation process. However, such recommendations are often case specific and variations in the experiences of indigenous peoples from country to country have not been widely documented. This article discusses the challenges faced by the Ainu in repatriation negotiations in Japan, with a particular focus on the difficulties of applying indigenous customs and philosophies within legal frameworks.

show abstract

“…The contemporary Ainu also have Japanese names because o f former government policies. Ethnic minorities can therefore hide their ethnicity if they do not 'come out' (Nakamura, 2007;2014). In fact, a number o f the Dogai Ainu admit that they left Hokkaido because they could expect to hide their ethnicity and be free from discrimination outside Hokkaido.…”

Section: Concealing Ethnicity In An Intolerant Social Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Being Indigenous in a Non-Indigenous Environment: Identity Politics of the Dogai Ainu and New Indigenous Policies of Japan

Nakamura

2015

Environ Plan A

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The au th o r discusses the identities and socioeconomic status o f Indigenous people in a non-Indigenous environm ent, ways to recognize Indigenous belonging statistically, and ethnic policies in a Japanese context, specifically focusing on the Dogai Ainu; that is, the Ainu who left their original hom eland of H okkaido and live elsewhere in Japan. The Japanese G overnm ent's 2010 socioeconomic survey of the Dogai Ainu dem onstrated a socioeconomic gap between the D ogai Ainu and the m ajority o f the Japanese. This survey also revealed the difficulty of conducting surveys o f the Dogai Ainu because, in a non-Indigenous environm ent, many o f them tend to conceal their ethnicity for fear of discrim ination and hesitate to participate in surveys. Indigenous peoples in Anglophone countries are increasingly challenging the definition of Indigeneity as imposed by outsiders, and self-identification is becoming an essential com ponent o f recognizing Indigenous belonging to reflect the reality and diversity o f Indigenous identities. Some countries such as the USA and C anada have also begun using self-identification for enum eration in statistics. The case study of the D ogai Ainu, however, suggests that Indigenous belonging cannot always be recognized by self-identification and Indigenous policies may have to be implemented w ithout comprehensive data.

show abstract

Realising Ainu indigenous rights: a commentary on Hiroshi Maruyama's ‘Japan's post-war Ainu policy. Why the Japanese Government has not recognised Ainu indigenous rights?’

Cited by 10 publications

References 5 publications

The Ainu and Indigenous politics in Japan: negotiating agency, institutional stability, and change

The Ainu and Indigenous politics in Japan: negotiating agency, institutional stability, and change

Cultural affiliation is not enough: the repatriation of Ainu human remains

Being Indigenous in a Non-Indigenous Environment: Identity Politics of the Dogai Ainu and New Indigenous Policies of Japan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About