251 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.5 Summer, 2011

Ainu as a Heritage Language of : History, Current State and Future of Policy and Education

Jennifer Teeter and Takayuki Okazaki Kyoto Sangyo University

Abstract Ainu is the heritage language of the indigenous people of present-day southern , the Kurile Islands, present-day Hokkaidō, and northeastern Honshū (mainland Japan). The UNESCO Interactive Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger (2009) considered the Ainu language critically endangered with only 15 speakers remaining. This article scrutinizes UNESCO’s assessment and analyzes the historical and current situation of the Ainu language and its transmission, particularly evaluating government policies related to the transmission of the Ainu language. Analysis in this article will draw upon our field observations and interviews conducted in Hokkaidō. Numerous formal and informal discussions were conducted with Ainu teachers, politicians, community members, and activists. Our findings indicate that the grassroots language revitalization efforts have been made and a growing number of youth speak Ainu, although their proficiency levels vary. While policymakers recognize the government’s responsibility in reversing language shift, they have yet to articulate adequate policies. The authors conclude with a discussion of the state’s positive responsibility to realize the rights ensured by the United Nations of Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This realization will facilitate the transmission of Ainu language and culture, and ensure its vitality in the future.

Introduction The UNESCO Interactive Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger (2009) considers the Ainu language critically endangered with only 15 speakers remaining. Although few would disagree with the assessment of the Ainu language as being endangered, recent research concurs that judging the status of a language based on this sheer number alone does not capture the entire picture (Barrena, Ortega, Uranga, Izagirre, and Idiazabal (2007)). As Kaori Tahara (2009) notes, “Much of the [Ainu] population doesn’t participate in polls and hides its identity” for fear of discrimination. In fact, the data used in the atlas compiled by researcher Alexander Vovin in 1996 is out-of-date and does not take into account a 2006 poll conducted by the Hokkaidō government which indicates that out of the 23,782 people that have identified themselves as Ainu, “304 understand the Ainu language, and among these, 4.6% feel they [have] mastered it to the point of being able to teach it” (pp. 15-16).

Furthermore, criteria used to judge the viability of a language in the atlas do not take into consideration how and on what occasions and at what different stages of their lives people have or have not used Ainu. Okuda (2010) notes that many youth can express themselves in Ainu, some being able to have free conversations and understand Ainu stories that are over dozens of minutes long. He argues that this level of language ability illustrates that although they may not be “native speakers”, they can be considered “active speakers.” Therefore, the doomsayers who insist the Ainu language is headed towards extinction seem to be oversimplifying their analysis.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 08:00:32PM via free access 252 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.5 Summer, 2011

After the passage of the Ainu Cultural Promotion Act in 1997 (H.R. Law No. 52), a law with aims to promote, disseminate, and advocate on behalf of Ainu cultural traditions, a leading scholar on multilingual education in Japan, J.C. Maher (2001) described the resurgence of the Ainu language:

…it is obvious, to even the casual observer, that the Ainu language is on the move and has made substantial gains both in grass-roots consciousness and at national policy level (p. 324).

Maher concluded that “the official response by the government … as been slow but nevertheless forthcoming” (2001, p. 344). This tendency towards governmental support starting over a decade ago, combined with revitalization efforts being made in Ainu communities themselves, indicates a far healthier future for the Ainu language than the UNESCO report predicts.

The purpose of this article is to assess the historical and current situation of the Ainu language and its transmission, while in particular evaluating government policies related to the transmission of the Ainu language. Analysis in this article will draw upon our field observations and interviews conducted in Hokkaidō from August 2009 until July 2010. This field work included formal and informal discussions with Ainu teachers, politicians, community members, and activists. Both authors are active participants in an Ainu-led research team inaugurated in 2010 and formed to determine options for the establishment of an Ainu school in Hokkaidō. Data from this group’s research will be drawn upon as well.

First, we will explore the historical background that shapes the ’s experience with the Japanese government to better comprehend the present-day situation of the Ainu language and language policies related to it. Next, this article will critically analyze the way current vicissitudes of policymaking with respect to the Ainu have influenced Ainu language education in Ainu communities. We will discuss efforts being made by the Ainu people and empathizers to ensure the vitality of their language. We will conclude with a discussion of how realizing the rights ensured by the United Nations of Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP) (United Nations, 2007) ratified by the Japanese government in 2007 will facilitate the transmission of the Ainu language and ensure its vitality in the future.

Japanese Colonization, Ainu Schools, and Language Shift Tokugawa Era Colonization The Ainu people are the indigenous people of present-day southern Sakhalin, the Kurile Islands, northeastern Honshū (mainland Japan), and present-day Hokkaidō. Incidentally, among the Ainu people’s long history of their land being independent from any state, the colonization and unilateral annexation of Ezo (present-day Hokkaidō), into the Japanese territory in 1869 falls into the category of recent events.

While the language policies carried out in the Tokugawa Era (1603-1868), were not nearly as systematic as the following Meiji Era (1868- 1912) policies (Tezuka, 2006), they did set the stage for the Japanese government to enact policies in the subsequent Meiji period that would attempt to assimilate the Ainu people and eliminate the Ainu language. Fearful of encroachment on Japan by their northern Russian neighbors, the Tokugawa Shogunate encouraged Japanization (occasionally by force) of the Ainu people, which included the use of Japanese (Maher, 2001, p. 328). Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 08:00:32PM via free access 253 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.5 Summer, 2011

Furthermore, Matsumae Domain1 merchants created an exploitative contract system where the Ainu were relocated from their homes to work all over Ezo, a system which was facilitated by the Japanese merchants’ prevailing view of the Ainu people as inferior (Siddle, 1996, p. 37). With the aim of perpetuating discrimination against the Ainu and with its monopoly over trade with the Ainu, Matsumae Domain officials prohibited the Ainu from using the up until the end of eighteenth century. Due to exploitative work conditions, many Ainu died from unfamiliar diseases brought from the settlers, malnutrition, and even hunger (Keira, 2008). Throughout the Tokugawa Period, the Matsumae Domain tactically separated Ainu people from their families, relocating them and exploiting them to the extent that community bonds were destroyed, making it difficult for the Ainu to unite in resistance (Keira, 2008).

The Ainu were by no means passive bystanders and stood united in resistance in wars against exploitative merchants and the Matsumae officials, including the Shakushain War (1669) and the Menashi-Kunashi War (1789) (Emori, 2009a, 2009b). Despite this, in the span of 22 years from 1832-54, the number of Ainu people on the West coast of Ezo decreased by half and significantly decreased in other areas. The severity of the decline in the Ainu population by 1854 elucidates the harshness of Japanese colonization endeavors (Ogawa, 1991, p. 267). The word sisam-utar, the Ainu term meaning “friendly neighbor” previously used when referring to the Japanese, was eventually replaced with its corrupted form shamo. The usage of shamo captures the oppressive nature of Wajin [Japanese]2 colonizers (fieldnotes, Hokkaidō, August 10, 2009).

However, since the threat of Russian advance was not particularly imminent due to Russia’s preoccupation with a war with France, the Tokugawa Shogunate’s encroachment onto Ezo only had a minimal effect on the Ainu language, and even less once the influential Shogunate’s power began to diminish (Tezuka, 2006). Yet, with the arrival of the Meiji Era, the government’s enhanced worries about a Russian takeover of Hokkaidō led to the systemization and acceleration of Japanization. Nonetheless, the process of separation and exploitation of the Ainu carried out by Tokugawa era merchants did indeed threaten the Ainu lifestyles, caused a severe decline in the Ainu population, and created a socio-economic gap between the Ainu and Wajin, all of which facilitated future colonial policies (Tezuka, 2006).

Kaitakushi (Colonization Commission) Ezo colonization policy was born at the beginning of the Meiji Era in 1869 when Ezo was unilaterally annexed into Japanese territory and renamed Hokkaidō. The Ainu were to be assimilated and used to defend the empire against a Russian advance, and the Meiji government, cultivating the image of Hokkaidō as a terra nullius, encouraged multitudes of mainly lower-income Japanese to immigrate there. By instituting policies of agriculturalization and education, the Meiji government aimed to assimilate the Ainu into Japanese society.

Building on the course of action initiated by Tokugawa, the Meiji government’s official arm of Hokkaidō colonization policy, the Kaitakushi [Colonization Commission] implemented even more systematic and harsher policies, altering Ainu society dramatically. They denied Ainu ownership of iwor (hunting grounds/traditional life spaces), banned hunting and fishing, prohibited crucial aspects of the Ainu culture, and established a private landowning system in 1872. With the signing of the Treaty for the Exchange of Sakhalin for theDownloaded Kurile from Islands Brill.com09/26/2021 08:00:32PM via free access 254 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.5 Summer, 2011

between Russia and Japan in 1875, Enchiu people from southern Sakhalin were displaced to Hokkaidō and grouped together with the Ainu people (Tazawa, 2010), dramatically harming the cultural practice of the Enchiu, who are often referred to as Sakhalin Ainu by other Ainu and Japanese. In 1882, Hokkaidō was divided into three prefectures, and more Ainu were forcibly relocated so that authorities had more control over them and could redistribute their fertile lands to Wajin (Katō, 1980; Ogawa, 1993, p. 238).

Prior to the Kaitakushi’s imposition of assimilatory policies, Ainu education, although not institutionalized, was “an inseparable aspect of daily life and religious belief” (Ogawa, 1993, p. 237). It included oral arts, hunting, fishing, gathering, dancing, singing, carving, embroidery, and performing ceremonies in the kotan in which they lived (Abe, 2008). However, community disintegration through forced relocation, coupled with assimilatory educational policies, invited the abandonment of Ainu traditions and traditional education.

Ainu children were isolated into schools where their family could assert no influence, and were taught that Ainu culture and tradition was inferior. In 1872, thirty-eight Ainu young adults were brought from , Otaru, and Yoichi to Tōkyō to be assimilated into Japanese culture (Hasegawa, 2008; Kano & Hirose, 2008). The government also used 15 children from Kamikawa as guinea pigs in a school they established in Sapporo. Both schools fell to ruin within a year. However, Meiji experiments with Ainu education would continue and by 1877, the first Ainu school was established near Sapporo in Tsuishikari. Many other schools would follow (Abe, 2008). At this point, however, the Ainu still had misgivings, and school attendance remained low, barely reaching 9% in 1886 (Ogawa, 1991, p. 261). From the beginning of the 1890s, however, attendance rose after the further deterioration of Ainu ways of life caused by, among other factors, the implementation of a series of laws that redistributed Ainu land to wealthy Wajin landowners, and the replacement of Ainu workers with Wajin immigrants and convicts to exploit natural resources.

Former Natives Act The Kaitakushi persisted in enacting policies that ravaged traditional Ainu lifestyles and imposed unfamiliar ways of living. By1899, the pervasiveness of poverty in Ainu communities worried Wajin and governmental officials. Ironically, believing integration was the way to “save” the Ainu from their “inevitable fate” the Wajin established the 1899 Former Natives Protection Act to assimilate the Ainu who were “vanishing” due to the theft of their land and destruction of their lifestyles through assimilation (M. Keira, 1995, p. 11)

The Kaitakushi aimed to assimilate the Ainu “into model Imperial subjects through the eradication of their former language, customs, and values” (Siddle, 1996, p. 70) by allocating land to Ainu families at no charge, and providing welfare and education. Parliamentary debate in Tōkyō was teeming with defamatory articulations about the Ainu people, as this example from M. Keira (1995) demonstrates:

The natives aren’t knowledgeable enough to appreciate assimilation into the Empire, nor to be able to revere the Emperor, nor to understand the system. Their resources and ways of life have been gradually taken from them. They are at the brink of starvation so a law to protect them must be passed (p. 11).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 08:00:32PM via free access 255 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.5 Summer, 2011

These derogatory statements, made in abundance by Meiji parliamentarians, show that Japanese officials considered the Ainu an embarrassment to the Japanese Empire and desired to eliminate any trace of Ainu culture by promoting Japanese as a language of enlightenment (Abe, 2008). The “new” policies to follow were simply an extension of previous policies that originally impoverished the Ainu, this time justified by the “survival of the fittest” theory and the desire to “come to the rescue” of Ainu doomed to extinction (Ogawa, 1993, p. 239). However, the Ainu’s destitute state was not inevitable, but unquestionably caused by Japanese colonial exploitation.

The Act emphasized agriculture as the path to “civilization” and ordained that 5-hectares of land be distributed to each Ainu family for agricultural cultivation purposes, although the families only received an average of 2 hectares of largely unfertile land (Siddle, 1996, p. 71), while 33.3 hectare allotments of had been previously sold cheaply or given away for free to Japanese immigrants. Furthermore, Japanese large capital holders were able to receive between 500 hectares to 1666 hectares essentially for free (Ogasawara, 2001). A handful Ainu families managed to thrive in agriculture (Yamamoto, 1995), but the poor quality and size of the allotments, coupled with restrictions against selling the often-unfertile land, trapped most Ainu in the lowest class of farmers (Siddle, 1996). Assistance was not provided to Ainu seeking to maintain lifestyles other than farming because assimilation through agriculturalization was the law’s primary goal (Ogawa, 1993).

Meiji educational endeavors were systemized with the establishment of special Former Native schools following Hokkaidō’s Regulation for the Education of Former Aboriginal Children in 1901. Pre-existing schools continued under the auspices of this law, and 25 new schools were built throughout Hokkaidō; sometimes separate Ainu and Japanese schools were constructed on the same site (Abe, 2008). In 1904, grants were made available to Ainu students, accelerating the delivery of assimilatory education (Ogawa, 1993, p. 240).

Assimilatory Education The Kaitakushi in essence organized Ainu inequality by imposing the Japanese language on them while limiting their educational opportunities. Teachers were essential in promoting Ainu attendance at schools. They often went door-to-door, recruiting parents and the elderly to attend school or special meetings (Abe, 2008) and promising to prepare students to live and find employment in Japanese society. Despite the policy’s degrading view of Ainu culture, many Ainu people did seek education so that they would be included in Japanese society. Attendance in schools reached almost 30% by 1898 and doubled by 1904 to 69.7%, exceeding 90% by 1910 (Ogawa, 1991, p. 261)

Schools strongly discouraged the use of the Ainu language in classrooms, and the majority of time in school was devoted to studying Japanese (Abe, 2008). In modern day discussion of minority language rights in judicial courts and the UN, it is recognized that these kinds of restrictions against language use generally bring about poverty, according to Skuttnab- Kangas (2008):

If an educational model…does not allow indigenous or minority children to be educated mainly through a medium of a language that the child understands, then the child is effectively being denied access to an education…Dominant-medium language education for indigenous children Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 08:00:32PM via free access 256 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.5 Summer, 2011

often curtails the development of children’s capabilities and perpetuates poverty (p. 3).

Furthermore, mother-tongue education research shows that children who receive education in their formative years in their mother tongue outperform those who receive education in an unfamiliar language (Thomas & Collier, 1997). Ainu children, allowed no option other than learning in their non-native Japanese, were significantly disadvantaged. Similar to the reasoning of Tollefson (1991) in his discussions of the learning of English, learning Japanese was not a solution to poverty for the Ainu, but rather resulted from the unequal power relationship.

Even though the Ainu language was never formally prohibited, the socio-political restrictions against its use were devastating. In schools and in public, the Ainu were scolded or belittled if they spoke their native tongue, reinforcing feelings of inferiority (Yamamoto, 1995). Table 1 shows that more than half of second, third, and fourth grade classes were conducted in Japanese, supplemented by other classes that included the recitation of Japanese songs.

Table 1

Hours Taught Per Subject as Mandated by the Revised Hokkaidō’s Regulation for the Education of Former Aborigines' Children (1915)

First Grade Second Grade Third Grade Fourth Grade

Ethics 2 2 2 2

National 8(11） 12 14 14 Language (Japanese) Math 5 6 6 6

Physical Education 3 3 3 3 （Songs） Sewing Female 2 Female 2 Agriculture Male 2 Male 2 Total 18(21) 23 27 27 Translated and adapted from Ogawa (1999) A Study on the Modern History of Education for the Ainu, p. 417.

While Japanese language education was pushed upon the Ainu people, Japanese educators and governmental officials deprecated the mental development of Ainu children, contending their mental capacity was inferior to Wajin children. This unwarranted beliefDownloaded legitimized from Brill.com09/26/2021 a 08:00:32PM via free access 257 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.5 Summer, 2011

curriculum for Ainu that was restricted to four years of schooling starting at the age of seven, as opposed to a six year curriculum for Wajin children, who began one year earlier. Consequently, most Ainu students were not prepared to pursue higher education, nor did Japanese authorities expect them to matriculate.

While Ogawa questions the reliability of the research conducted by the Hokkaidō government, the following early research reports still show how Ainu language use had shifted to a certain degree. The 1919 Hokkaidō governmental report entitled “Research on Former Aborigines” (cited in Ogawa, 1999, p.278) reports that the Ainu “in most cases, speak Ainu among themselves while they use Japanese language with Japanese.”

Many Ainu were bilingual, using both Ainu and Japanese languages depending on their interlocutors. At the same time, another report from 1929 entitled The Overview of Former Aborigines (cited in Ogawa, 1999) concludes: Currently, the majority does not use the Ainu language and most young people do not know how to speak the Ainu language (p.278). Assimilatory education, with more than 90 percent attendance from 1910, had a strong correlation with the decline in use of the Ainu language among young people.

The Ainu language’s value decreased not only in the schools, but also in society, as fluency in Japanese became necessary for economic survival. Darrell Kipp argues that language loss occurs for lack of any other choice; when indigenous peoples wanted their children to lead “normal” lives in the dominant society. When minority languages and are condemned by majority society as inferior and thereby deemed economically impractical, speaking these mother tongues prevents children from blending in (cited in Nijhuis, 2002, p. 7). The Ainu people’s shift to Japanese was not voluntary because in fact there was no alternative and they could not foresee the consequences. While an oppressed person has agency in their reactions to colonization, it is certain that the racism embedded in the education system, Ainu policy, and society in general, inhibited Ainu language transmission to future generations.

Unfortunately, education, promoted as a way to improve Ainu standards of living, instead kept families in poverty (Ogawa, 1993, p. 242) while simultaneously undermining Ainu culture, ways of life, and language. In 1931, Tozo Kaizawa (quoted in Ogawa & Yamada, et al. 1998, p. 119) noted, “Today few young Ainu understand me if I talk to them in Ainu. Now, the elderly speak Ainu among themselves, but most of them speak Japanese to young Ainu.”

Eventually, many Ainu people believed “the future belongs to the Japanese. We no longer need to do things that are Ainu. We should become Japanese as soon as possible” (T. Keira, 1995, p. 6). Many families hid their heritage from their children to prevent segregation, cutting their children off from their Ainu roots. However, others were able to maintain their culture and pass it on to their children despite the pressure from mainstream society (Yamamoto, 1995).

Ainu Resistance Prior hesitance of families towards Japanese education was gradually replaced by enthusiasm starting from around 1910, as it was seen as a way to bring families out of poverty even though, at most, Ainu education provided competence in Japanese that was sufficient only for daily life. Eventually the Ainu demanded the abolition of separate Ainu schoolsDownloaded from to Brill.com09/26/2021 make 08:00:32PM via free access 258 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.5 Summer, 2011

access to education equal, and by 1937 all Ainu schools were closed, in part because “the system, which had been set up to destroy Ainu language and culture, had accomplished these aims so thoroughly that it was no longer necessary” (Ogawa, 1993, p. 245). Unfortunately, the inclusion of Ainu students in Japanese schools did not eliminate the barriers as anticipated since prejudice was already institutionalized. As a result, Ainu children, outnumbered by Japanese, were made to feel even more inferior, and as a result many Ainu students dropped out of school (Shimazaki, 2009).

While colonization dealt a significant blow to their cultural traditions, Ainu resistance strengthened. In the 1920s, the published works of Ainu writers including Yukie Chiri and Hokuto Iboshi protesting Ainu treatment by the Japanese emboldened many Ainu to problematize the circumstances of the Ainu people in Japanese society, assert pride in their heritage, and raise their voices to advocate for change. Chiri’s (1923/1978) introduction of her epoch-making translation into Japanese of 13 kamuy yukar3 in Ainushinyōshū (A Collection of Ainu Deity Epics), entitled Kotan (Village) expresses remorse about the effects of colonization on the practice of Ainu culture:

Our ancestors left us the language, sayings and beautiful words they used to communicate their daily ups and downs. Is it, too, disappearing along with other ‘weak dying things’? Oh, what an incredibly tragic waste! (p. 4).

Sadly, Chiri passed away due to a heart problem in 1922 at the age of 19 before the book was published in 1923. Nonetheless, her work is acknowledged for providing the momentum for Ainu youth to express pride in their heritage and language. At a young age, when many Ainu people were compelled to look to Japan, she was looking inward at her own culture and her own people’s oral tradition, translating it so that it could be known in Japanese.

Hokuto Iboshi, an Ainu contemporary of Chiri, self-published a magazine where he provided his critiques of Japanese society and encouraged Ainu to articulate their identity:

Instead of letting life pass idly by hiding in the shadows of the Japanese, we must take part in ensuring the just progress of humankind. The time has come for all of us, all Ainu, to rise up and shout, with no hesitation: “We are Ainu!” Whether we are ashamed of our ancestors or not, it does not matter if being Ainu is disadvantageous or inconvenient. We cannot help but express ourselves. “We are Ainu!” Our pride as aboriginal people is the resolve behind our voices. We must not dare to carelessly dispose of this pride. We must scoff at the absurd contempt towards us born out of the constructs of (Japanese) society and be true to our people (quoted in Ogasawara, 2001, p. 163).

The work of these early writers exposed the complexity of Ainu identity and resonated with the Ainu people. Their voices represented a significant part of a larger Ainu movement committed to stripping away the cloak of silence imposed on them by Japanese colonial policies. In the face of colonization, Ainu ways of life were not eliminated as the Kaitakushi intended, but rather evolved through negotiation between the changes in society and tradition. For example, after the iyomante was banned, “spirits” were still “sent back” to the land of gods in other types of ceremonies (Ogawa, 1993). Furthermore, Ainu culture came to include more articulations of resistance and dissent to raise consciousness about colonization.Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 08:00:32PM via free access 259 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.5 Summer, 2011

In 1930 the Hokkaidō Ainu Kyōkai (which has since gone through a series of name changes, from Utari Kyōkai in 1961 to a return in 2009 to Ainu Kyōkai), an organization meant for all Hokkaidō Ainu, was formed and contributed to the movement to end to discriminatory education. The 1960s and 1970s saw political mobilization of Ainu groups rebelling against paternalistic policies that entrapped Ainu in colonial law, and the 1980s and 1990s saw increased participation in international indigenous rights movements and legal mobilization for laws to overturn the Former Natives Act.

Recent Policymaking Utari Kyōkai’s draft on the New Ainu Law, and the Cultural Promotion Act In 1984, the Utari Kyōkai completed a draft of legislation to replace the Former Natives Act, which had formed the foundation of Ainu policy for over 80 years. They made the following demands to compensate for the history of dispossession and marginalization by the Japanese government:

1. The protection of human rights (no more discrimination)

2. Seats in Parliament for indigenous Ainu

3. Education and culture (described in detail below)

4. Agriculture, fishing, forestry, and commercial and manufacturing activity

5. Fund for Ainu self-reliance

6. A Central Consultative Council for Ainu Policy (cited in Abe, 2008)

Specifically, in the areas of education and culture, the Utari Kyōkai explained that the only way that persistent institutional discrimination, which had “hindered the normal development of the Ainu people in education and culture and contributed to their inferior situation socially and economically,” could be overcome was to implement the following measures:

1. The implementation of a general education policy for Ainu children.

2. The planned introduction of Ainu language lessons for Ainu children.

3. The implementation of a policy to completely eliminate discrimination against the Ainu, both within the school system and in education in society.

4. The initiation of courses in Ainu language, culture and history as part of university education. This reform would include the employment of Ainu with ability to conduct such courses in various fields as professors, associate professors, or lecturers, regardless of existing legislation, as well as the establishment of a special admissions system for Ainu children to enter university and to take such courses.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 08:00:32PM via free access 260 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.5 Summer, 2011

5. The establishment of a national research facility specializing in the study and maintenance of Ainu language and culture with Ainu actively participating as researchers. This measure is intended to correct past abuses in research, which was unilaterally conducted without respect to the wishes of the Ainu people and turned the Ainu into so-called objects of research.

6. The reinvestigation of the problems surrounding the contemporary transmission and preservation of Ainu culture, with a view to perfecting methods (Siddle, 1996, pp. 197-198).

In response, the government enacted the 1997 Ainu Cultural Promotion Act (CPA). However, not one Ainu person was included in the “expert” meetings prior to the law’s passage. Proclaimed an epoch-making event by some, it ignored most of the Utari Kyōkai demands and maintained “older attitudes towards Japanese homogeneity and the management of minorities” (Siddle, 2002, p. 1). Article 2 of the Act defines Ainu culture as follows: “In this law, Ainu culture is Ainu language, music, dance, artifacts and other cultural property.” However, there is no mention of language education and how it should be carried out. Therefore, Tezuka (2006) concludes it can be understood that Ainu language education was purposefully left out. Moreover, as Nakagawa (1999, cited in Tezuka, 2006) argued, the law failed to address why the Ainu language was being lost, and required the government only to fund projects considered “cultural.”

The CPA did attend to point 5 of the Utari Kyōkai demands by creating the Foundation for Research and Promotion of Ainu Culture (FRPAC). However, the remainder of the points are unaddressed, and “the emphasis on the ‘traditional’ reduces Ainu culture to the common stereotype that exists in tourist centers…[and] curtails the possibility of a contemporary hybridity or resistance” (Siddle, 2002, p. 406). In other words, the narrow definition of “traditional culture” promoted by the CPA, propagates an antiquated image of the Ainu engaged only in traditional activities of language, traditional dance, and handicrafts (H.R. Law 52, Article 2, 1997). Ainu people engaged in these narrowly-defined “traditional” acts can receive support, yet those who express their “Ainuness” in other manners fall outside the limits of the act. The CPA, therefore, does not support the Ainu in the assertion of their own identities as they see fit. It dictates the manner in which Ainu participate as Ainu in contemporary Japanese society, only encouraging Ainu to pursue “traditional” cultural activities. It also overlooks the structural barriers that marginalize Ainu people by neglecting even to mention these barriers. The law may have raised awareness about the Ainu in Japan to a small extent, but ultimately it served as a tool for the Japanese government to promote itself as conscious of its indigenous people while preventing genuine moves towards Ainu self-determination.

Ainu Indigeneity and a New Ainu Law Following the recognition of the Ainu as an indigenous people of Japan in 2008, a new expert panel was formed to draft an Ainu law. One of the few improvements over the last panel was the inclusion of one Ainu person. Previous policy panels did not include any Ainu people. The panel’s 2009 report (Naikaku Kanbō Ainu Sōgōseisakushitsu, 2009) recognized the following:

The nation has a responsibility to consider methods to restore the Ainu

culture. Strong consideration is needed for policies that respect AinuDownloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 08:00:32PM via free access 261 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.5 Summer, 2011

culture and spirituality, particularly the revitalization of the Ainu language (p. 28).

However, the report’s suggestions are limited to praising current FRPAC efforts and recommending FRPAC-funded Ainu language “projects” such as a weekly fifteen-minute radio program for introductory Ainu lessons ("Ainugo rajio kōza," 2010), an annual Ainu speech contest, three-day instructor training sessions and bi-weekly advanced language lessons (Nakagawa, 2009).

The composition of the expert panel changed with the new government in 2010 and the panel now includes five Ainu. However, the panel is led by Japanese researchers, while Ainu participation is limited to those selected by only one of many Ainu organizations. The panel’s discussion primarily focuses on implementing a survey of Ainu living outside of Hokkaidō and creating traditional life spaces, or iwor. Ainu language education and other cultural aspects largely remain unaddressed.

What makes this situation possible is a discourse of cultural homogeneity that clouds any discussion of multiculturalism in Japan. Japan’s conception of homogeneity has been carefully cultivated since the Meiji government’s endeavor to forge a national, single-ethnic Japanese identity to catch up with the “West” (Fujitani, 1993). The government effectively suppressed regional identities and forged “nation” and “race” into a singular ideology by propagating an allegory of consanguineous unity through the Emperor (Weiner, 1997, pp. 1- 2). The sense of “Other” spread throughout the Empire and validated assimilative policies. Differences between majority Japanese and minority populations within Japanese territories were used to measure Japanese progress towards “civilization.”

Just as inaccurate as the concept of a homogenous Japan is the concept of a homogenous Ainu community. The interests, lifestyles, and priorities of Ainu people and the way they connect with their identity are varied: some Ainu people are dedicated to making cultural practice central to their life while others prefer not to associate with “Ainuness” at all. Ainu people on the East and West coasts of Japan have different customs and political priorities in terms of land rights, for instance, and many Ainu people living in areas outside of Hokkaidō are fighting to remove their invisibility in the system and find ways to practice their identity outside of their native lands.

While it seems that the sluggish governmental policymaking suggests a gloomy future for the Ainu language, the Ainu people, though suffering the consequences of colonization, continue to survive, developing models of education that correspond to their life experiences. This next section will discuss the endogenous efforts of the Ainu to maintain, restore, and transmit the Ainu language.

Ainu-led Language and Culture Revitalization Efforts One of the issues that prevent Ainu students from taking full advantage of the educational system is the prevalence of discrimination, which Mina Sakai directly experienced growing up as an Ainu in Japanese society. According to Sakai (2008, p. 272), Ainu study groups have been set up for K-12 Ainu students who are often behind in their schoolwork because of discrimination and bullying from the non-Ainu students and complicated family situations.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 08:00:32PM via free access 262 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.5 Summer, 2011

In an effort to create a learning environment where Ainu people would be free from discrimination and their culture and language could be transmitted, Shigeru Kayano attempted to create a nursery school in the early 1980s. After receiving monetary contributions from sisam [Ainu for “friendly neighbor”] and Ainu alike, he still needed extra financial support from the government. He petitioned the Ministry of Welfare for funding, but his plan was rejected because Ainu would be the primary language of instruction (H. Uemura, personal communication, Kobe, 15 November, 2009). Besides international schools that teach in English, any school that does not employ Japanese as the language of education will not be accredited, and its graduates unable to sit university entrance exams. The school was never opened (Maher, 1997), and Kayano Shigeru instead built a private language school in Nibutani, the Nibutani Ainu Language School (Ōta, 2009).

Although the Ainu language is deemed a language on the brink of extinction because the majority of native speakers are elderly people, the number of youth attending Ainu language classes is growing yearly, with usually more than half of the members in their 20s or 30s (Nakagawa, 2009, p. 1). In addition to Ainu language courses offered by Ainu language researchers in several universities throughout Japan, they also are held across Hokkaidō; 14 of these (Nibutani, , Urakawa, Kushiri, Sapporo, Shiraoi, Chitose, Shinhidakacho, Mukawacho, , Shiranuka, , Tomakomai, and Samani) are funded by the Ainu Kyōkai (Ōta, 2009) and are designed to suit a range of language learning needs.

The Nibutani Ainu Language School was the first Ainu language school to receive financial support from the Ainu Kyōkai in October 1987, and an Asahikawa Ainu school was established later that year. Both are still in operation today (Kayano, 2010b). At present in Asahikawa, there are schools with parent-child classes, and classes separated by level, much like other kinds of language schools. In the parent-child classes (adapted from Native American teaching methods), parents and other family members accompany children to class and everyone learns together through conversation, writing, reading, Ainu song, and traditional Ainu games. The fundamental concept is that the parents and other adult family members are involved to encourage students. At a school in Asahikawa, children seem to enjoy playing the Ainu games and singing while learning the Ainu language (fieldnotes, August 19, 2009). The teacher at the school, Ōta Mitsuru (Ainu name: Maruku), noted that at first the children usually have no interest in the Ainu language, and tend to play amongst themselves while their parents study. He decided to translate popular Japanese songs, such as “The Grandfather’s Clock,” into Ainu and teach them these songs because children can relate to them. He also incorporated traditional Ainu songs into his teaching and talked about how he identifies as an Ainu person. At Ainu speech contests, students receive awards that impress their teachers and classmates at the public schools. Eventually, after learning these songs and seeing their parents enjoying their Ainu language studies, the children start to become interested and participate in the class (Ōta, 2009).

Aware that learning Ainu in schools does not always lead to its use outside of the classroom, Nibutani also hosts FM Pipaushi, named after the original name of Biratori Town (Kayano, 2010a). Launched in April 2001, it is the first radio program to broadcast in Ainu. The program airs twice a month on Sundays for an hour from 11am to 12pm and is also available on the Internet. This availability ensures a wide listenership, as people can tune in on the weekend in the middle of the day when more people are less likely to be working. Programming includes regional news, interviews, storytelling, Ainu lessons, and Ainu folk tales. Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 08:00:32PM via free access 263 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.5 Summer, 2011

The newspaper is another public domain resource for language revitalization. The Ainu Times, the first bilingual Ainu/Japanese newspaper, has been published every three months since 1997 in . As many as 30 different Ainu and Japanese authors have contributed articles to the newspaper over the past 17 years. Current editor Hamada (2010) notes that the newspaper evolved out of an Ainu pen club formed in 1996 led by Shiro Kayano. The Ainu Times now serves as the only newspaper where participants can publish their work in the Ainu language. It encourages language learners to continue their study and acquisition of Ainu, while creating resources for study of the Ainu languages in the future.

In addition, dozens of Ainu culture preservation groups have been established throughout Hokkaidō, Tōkyō and Osaka. With the help of elders, each group passes down traditional Ainu songs and dances to the younger generation. Recently Ainu youth have been forming music and performance groups that not only perform traditional songs and dances, but also incorporate contemporary music. Many of the youth in these groups have shared their understanding that the Ainu language is crucial to deepening their understanding of Ainu traditions. That is one of the reasons why more youth are learning Ainu.

Due to this increase in youth appreciation for the Ainu language, Nakagawa Hiroshi, a Japanese university professor and linguist, notes that it is possible for the Ainu language to be learned as a “native language” at near-native proficiency should the proper conditions for the study of the Ainu language be perpetuated. He uses the term “native language” in quotes to emphasize that the Ainu language would be a native language had societal conditions been different (Nakagawa, 2009, p. 4).

However, due to changes in customs and regional variations in the Ainu language, complications arise in the teaching of Ainu and the compilation of dictionaries. For instance, the Ainu word irankarapte, an initial greeting in the Enchiu, Sakhalin Ainu has been adopted for efficiency in place of the traditional recitation of yukar4 that would take place, particularly when men greet each other. Therefore, difficulties arise in choosing words to suit contemporary society, and choosing words for dictionaries or dialects to teach in class can become a point of controversy (fieldnotes, Asahikawa, August 18, 2009).

There is an abundance of print and recorded materials in Ainu; however, quality and distribution is a major stumbling block. Bookshops tend not to stock Ainu language materials and Ainu language writers and organizations often self-publish at their own expense. As for recorded material, copyright issues often prevent free access to these materials, have yet to be digitized and are deteriorating or get lost easily (Nakagawa, 2009).

As we have shown, although expert panel recognized the government’s responsibility to revitalize the Ainu language, government support of revitalization is minimal. Nonetheless, grassroots revitalization efforts can be seen in many parts of Hokkaidō and Japan. However, it is also true that societal restraints have blocked Ainu language and cultural transmission. Thus, we argue that more concrete efforts to support Ainu revitalization need to be made. The next section will argue that allowing for the realization of the rights enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP) will help support Ainu-led language and culture revitalization.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 08:00:32PM via free access 264 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.5 Summer, 2011

The Right to Education After years of struggle, the Ainu are officially recognized as the indigenous people of Japan, although the Japanese government, in a predictable pattern of denial for its previous acts of aggression domestically and internationally, has yet to show remorse for causing immense destitution among the Ainu people. The Japanese government-ratified United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples guarantees the right of the Ainu people to have control over their own education, including language education. To this end, Ainu organizations are holding seminars and workshops in Tōkyō to strategize on how to use DRIP to petition the government for their rights (fieldnotes, Nagoya, October, 22, 2010).

DRIP provides clear international standards for the rights of indigenous peoples to self- determination, to land and resources, and to cultural integrity. It also provides guidelines for the achievement of indigenous-led education. As Hough (2009) argues, indigenous education can only be successful if indigenous peoples maintain control over content and methodology; therefore, Ainu education efforts may not succeed if they are not adjusted to reflect Ainu culture instead of Japanese norms.

DRIP Articles 13 and 14 provide both of these requisites and require states to take measures to ensure the protection of these rights.

Article 13 Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons.

Article 14 Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning (United Nations, 1997).

Broadly speaking, these articles place positive obligations on governments to ensure Ainu people the right to construct and manage their own schools for the transmission of their culture and language. They call for curriculum development that is rooted in and dictated by the community where “local indigenous knowledge holders, teachers and students can come together to develop intergenerational learning strategies” rather than an exclusive, assimilatory governmental curriculum (Hough, 2009, p. 8).

One prerequisite for these articles to be realized is a profound shift in thinking about Japanese and Hokkaidō history and Japan’s historical responsibility for colonization. A reevaluation of and awareness-raising about the history of the “development” of Hokkaidō is called for (Uemura, 2008, pp. 21-22). In addition, the tendency for policymakers to ignore the diversity within the Ainu people living in various areas such as, the Enchiu, the Menasunkur Ainu in the East coast, and the Tōkyō Ainu (see Tazawa, 2010, Hasegawa, 2008; and Kano and Hirose, 2008), must be addressed. This tendency to consider these groups together must be corrected so that the interests of all Ainu people can be accurately represented. Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 08:00:32PM via free access 265 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.5 Summer, 2011

Furthermore, the government must establish a system where people can learn the Ainu language in public and private educational institutions, beyond the current Ainu language classrooms (Uemura, 2008, p. 21). Whether it be within P-12 school settings, tertiary education or community schools, or via immersion programs similar to Maori’s Kohanga Reo and, Hawaii’s Punana Leo or semi-bilingual culture-focused charter schools, Ainu people need to be given a chance to determine what is best for their own education. The system should include teacher training and development of materials. To assure the development of oral histories and philosophies, a research institute must be established, as mandated but never realized at the 1996 “Expert” Meeting so that Ainu themselves can conduct research in oral history and philosophies (Uemura, 2008, pp. 21-22).

For these objectives to be achieved effectively, a set of policies to eliminate discrimination must be implemented. Presently, opportunities to learn Ainu are limited because of societal discrimination and the failure to teach Ainu, and Japanese, about Ainu history, philosophies, and culture. DRIP’s Article 15, which provides the “right to the dignity and diversity of their cultures, traditions, histories and aspirations which shall be appropriately reflected in education and public information,” affirms the right for the Ainu to work with the Japanese government on education, including curriculum, textbooks, and teacher training. Ainu representatives should be included as equal participants in Ministry of Education’s committee meetings as well as city boards of education. Furthermore, Uemura (2008) recommends that every school teach children about human rights and indigenous rights. To introduce these themes conscientiously, Ainu culture, tradition and histories need to be introduced in Japanese schools.

Despite the marginalization of their language, the Ainu have responded proactively to overcome assimilative state policies. Although grassroots revitalization efforts continue to be made with and without governmental support, practical steps need to be taken to ensure the vitality of the Ainu language. Policymakers need to ensure support from the government for school- and community-based programs in the Ainu language and the provision of Ainu language materials as mandated by DRIP while, at the same time, eradicating discrimination in and out of school settings within Japanese society.

Clearly there are more than just 15 “active” speakers of Ainu, and more young Ainu are learning the language everyday. Should governmental policies become supportive of grassroots efforts to revitalize the Ainu language, while constructing a Japan that encourages respect and recognition of the Ainu culture and language, the number of speakers could be even more.

References Abe, Y. (2008). Ainu minzoku ni totte no kyōiku [Education for Ainu people]. Kaihō Kyōiku, 491, 7-14. Ainu bunka no fukō narabini Ainu dentō nado ni kansuru chishiki no fukyū oyobi keihatsu kansuru hōritsu [Law for the Promotion of the Ainu Culture and for the Dissemination and Advocacy for the Traditions of the Ainu and the Ainu Culture]. H.R. Law No. 52 (1997) Ainugo rajio kōza. (2010), STVradio Broadcasting. Retrieved from http://www.stv.ne.jp/radio/ainugo/index.html Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 08:00:32PM via free access 266 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.5 Summer, 2011

Barrena, A., E., A., Ortega, A., Uranga, B., Izagirre, E., & Idiazabal, I. (2007). Small languages and small language communities: Does the number of speakers of a language determine its fate? International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 186, 125-139. Chiri, Y. (1978). Ainushinyōshū [A Collection of Ainu Deity Epics]. Tōkyō: Iwanamibunko. Emori, S. (2009a). Ainu minzoku no zenkindaishi gakushū no yōten [The Important Points in Learning Pre-modern Ainu History]. Rekishicihrikyōiku, 742(3), 16-23. Emori, S. (2009b). Rekishi kara mita Ainu minzoku: Kobayashi Yoshinorishi no 'Ainu minzoku' hiteiron wo hihansuru [Ainu People From a Historical Point of View: A Critique of Kobayahi Yoshinori’s Denial of the Ainu People]. Buraku Kaihō (620), 20- 24. Fujitani, T. (1993). Inventing, Forgetting, Remembering: Toward a Historical Ethnography of the Nation-State. In H. Befu (Ed.), Cultural nationalism in : representation and identity (pp. 77-106). Berkeley: University of California. Hamada, T. (2010). Ainu Times, Retrieved from http://www.geocities.jp/otarunay/taimuzu.html Hasegawa, O. (2008). Sinrit Mosir Koicarpa he no michi [The path towards conducting ceremonies for our ancestors]. In Tōkyō Ainushikenkyūkai (Ed.), Tōkyō Icarpa he no michi [The path to ancestral ceremonies in Tōkyō]. (pp. 7-38). Tōkyō: Gendai kikakushitsu. Hough, D. A. (2009). UN declaration on the right of indigenous peoples: applications for MLE from Nepal to Bolivia and Beyond. Indian Folklife, 32, 6-10. Kaizawa, T. (1998). Ainu no sakebi [A call by the Ainu]. In M. Ogawa & S. Yamada (Eds.), Ainu minzoku no kindai no kiroku [A record of Ainu people in modern times]. Tōkyō: Sofukan. Kano, Y., & Hirose, K. (2008). Kaitakushi ni yori Tōkyō de no Ainu Kyōiku [Ainu Education in Tōkyō conducted by the Colonization Commission]. In Tōkyō Ainushienkyūkai (Ed.), Tōkyō Icarpa he no michi (pp. 39-142). Tōkyō: Gendai kikakushitsu. Katō, N. (1980). Hokkaidō sanken ikkyokujidai no tai Ainu seisaku to sono jitsujō [Ainu Policy and the Actual Situation in the Era when Hokkaidō had Three Prefectures]. Hokudai shigaku, 20, 14-26. Kayano, S. (2010a). FM Pipaushi Homepage. Retrieved from http://www.aa.alpha- net.ne.jp/skayano/menu.html Kayano, S. (2010b, September). Nibutani ni okeru torikumi: Kayano Shigeru Nibutani Ainu shiryōkan wo chushin ni [Efforts in Nibutani mainly focusing on the Kayano Shigeru Nibutani Ainu Museum]. Paper presented at Nihonshakai kyōiku gakkai, Kōbe University, Kobe, Japan. Keira, M. (1995). The Ainu people. In E. Yamamoto & T. Keira (Eds.), Ainu women, aboriginal people of Japan: keeping the hearts of our eldresses alive today. Hokkaidō, Japan: Yay Yukar no Mori. Keira, M. (2008). Kitanosaijiki: Ainu no sekai he [Literary Calendar of the North: The Ainu World]. Tōkyō: Komonzu. Keira, T. (1995). Ainu culture living today: self determined action as our motto. In E. Yamamoto & T. Keira (Eds.), Ainu women, aboriginal people of Japan: keeping the hearts of our eldresses alive today. Hokkaidō, Japan: Yay Yukar no Mori. Maher, J. C. (1997). Linguistic Minorities and Education in Japan. Educational Review, 49(2), 115-127.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 08:00:32PM via free access 267 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.5 Summer, 2011

Maher, J. C. (2001). Akor Itak – Our language, your language: Ainu in Japan. In J. A. Fishman (Ed.), Can threatened languages be saved? Reversing language shift, revisited (pp. 323-349). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Naikaku Kanbō Ainu Sōgōseisakushitsu. (2009). Ainu Seisaku no Arikata ni Kansuru Yushikisha Kondankai Hokokushō ([Expert Meeting Report on Ainu Policy]. Tōkyō: Naikaku. Nakagawa, H. (2009). Ainugo gakushū no mirai ni mukete: kangaekata to annai [Guidelines on how to Think about the future of the Ainu language]. Ainu seisaku no arikata ni kansuru yushikisha kondankai (dai 5 kai) shiryō 2 [Expert Meeting Report on Ainu Policy, fifth meeting, document 2]. Tōkyō: Naikaku. Nijhuis, M. (2002). Finding the words. High Country News, January 21. Retrieved from http://www.pieganinstitute.org/findingthewords.pdf Ogasawara, N. (2001). Ainu kingen daishi dokuhon [Modern Ainu History Reader]. Tōkyō: Ryokufu Shuppan. Ogawa, M. (1991). 'Ainu gakkō' no setchi to 'Hokkaidō kyūdojin hogohō,''kyūdojin jidō kyōiku kitei' no seiritsu [A historical study on“Aine School” in Hokkaidō(1):The Forming process of the educational system for Ainu children in the 1870's-1900]. Hokkaidō daigaku kyōikugakubu kiyō, 55, 257-325. Ogawa, M. (1993). The Hokkaidō former aborigines protection act and assimilatory education. In N. Loos & T. Osanai (Eds.), Indigenous minorities and education: Australian and Japanese perspectives of their indigenous peoples, the Ainu, Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders (pp. 237-249). Tōkyō: Sanyusha. Ogawa, M. (1999). Kindai Ainu kyōiku seidoshi kenkyū [Research of the history of the Ainu Education System in modern times]. Sapporo: Hokkaidō Daigaku Tosho Kankokai. Okuda, O. (2010). Kokubungaku Kaishaku to Kanshō [Interpretations and appreciation of literature in Japan]. Ainugo shiryō no hozon to katsuyō [preservation and utilization of Ainu language materials]. Tōkyō: Shibundō. Ōta, M. (2009). Asahikawa Ainugo Kyōiku no genjō to kadai [The current situation and challenge in Asahikawa Ainu Language Education]. Rekishi Chiri Kyōiku, 742(1), 36-47. Sakai, M. (2008). On the recognition of the indigenous poeples' rights of the Ainu. In J. Chan (Ed.), Another Japan is possible: new social movements and global citizenship education (pp. 272-275). Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Shimazaki, N. (2009). Kenri kaifuku to ha jibun ga koe wo agerukoto [Rights recovery means voicing your opinions]. Inpakushon tokushu senjūminzoku Ainu, 167, 22-25. Siddle, R. (1996). Race, resistance and the Ainu of Japan. London: Routledge. Siddle, R. (2002). An epoch-making event? The 1997 Ainu Cultural Promotion Act and its impact. Japan Forum, 14(3), 405-423. Skuttnab-Kangas, T. (2008). Minorities and access to education. Invited notes for the UN forum on minority issues established by the Human Rights Council, 1-13, Retrieved from http://www.tove-skutnabb- kangas.org/pdf/Minorities_and_Access_to_Education_Invited_notes_for_the_(UN)_Foru m_on_Minority_Issues_September_2008_Dr_Tove_Skutnabb-Kangas.pdf Tahara, K. (2009). The saga of the Ainu language the UNESCO courier (Vol. 1, pp. 15-16): UNESCO. Tazawa, M. (2010). The modern history of the "Karafuto (Sakhalin) Ainu: introducing this year's survey conducted by the Karafuto Ainu Association. Unpublished paper presented at session two: research and practices of indigenous peoples, World Indigenous Peoples Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 08:00:32PM Summit in Aichi 2010, Nagoya, Japan. via free access 268 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.5 Summer, 2011

Tezuka, Y. (2006). Ainugo shigaikan: genko, shakai, seifu(An overview of Ainu language history). I/yay-pakasnu: ainugo no gakushū to kyōiku no tame ni(For Ainu language learning and education) (pp. 87-110). Asahikawa: Hokkaidō kyōiku daigaku Asahikawa- kō. Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information Center. Tollefson, J. W. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: language policy in the community. London; New York: Longman. Uemura, H. (2008). ‘Senjuminzoku no kenri ni kansuru kokuren sengen’ kakutoku he no nagai michinori [A long way to obtain DRIP]. PRIME(27), 53-68. UNESCO (2009). UNESCO Interactive Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger, Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?pg=00206 UN General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly, 2 October 2007, A/RES/61/295, retrieved from: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/471355a82.html Weiner, M. (1997) Japan's minorities : the illusion of homogeneity, Sheffield Centre for Japanese Studies/Routledge series, London; New York: Routledge. Yamamoto, E. (1995). My life in the Ainu community of Akan: teaching our children to sing with pride and dance with joy. In E. Yamamoto & T. Keira (Eds.), Ainu women, aboriginal people of Japan: keeping the hearts of our eldresses alive today. Hokkaidō, Japan: Yay Yukar no Mori.

Acknowledgement Much appreciation goes to David Hough who initiated conversations with us about indigenous rights and education, and subsequently introduced us to Mere Kepa who has been a constant source of support and insight. We are grateful for Richard Siddle’s suggestions and guidance through the initial drafts of this paper. Most importantly, we would like to pay our deepest and humblest respect to the Ainu people who shared their time, experiences, and often their homes, to engage in continuous dialog with us about these important issues.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 08:00:32PM via free access 269 Heritage Language Journal, 8(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.8.2.5 Summer, 2011

Notes 1. The domain of the Matsumae family, previously known as Kakizaki until 1599, was granted control over all trade between the Japanese and the Ainu upon its incorporation into the Tokugawa Shogunate in 1604. In the face of Ainu resistance, the Matsumae sought to shift the balance of the once mutually-beneficial trade system in their favor by infringing on and establishing trading posts in Ainu territory. The appropriation of Ainu land into Japan has roots in a 1551 trade agreement between Kakizaki family merchants and Ainu leaders giving the Kakizaki clan control over a small piece of land between Kaminokuni and Shiriuchi (Siddle, 1996, pp. 31-38).

2. Following standard practice, the Japanese term Wajin is used here to distinguish between the Japanese and the Ainu, emphasizing the difference between the immigrant Japanese and indigenous Ainu (For a detailed discussion of Wajin and common use of other related terminology, see Siddle, 1996, p. 5).

3. Kamuy yukar are Ainu deity epics that have been passed on generation after generation.

4. Yukar are Ainu epic poetry.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 08:00:32PM via free access