I am finishing up a book by John Lie (2001), called “Multi-ethnic Japan.” I plan on using much of its argument to teach Identity and Culture here at Hokkaido U of Education. Fascinating stuff, and I learned much about the hybrid character of Japanese culture, or rather it opened my eyes to what is already all around me!
His main argument is this: Just as the US power base and government “created” and propagated the idea of a unified “white race,” which effectively pulled into one group diverse ethnicities such as Italian, Irish, Russian, and Jewish peoples, further erasing the many ethnic identities inside each of those groups, etc.), and just as the French government tried to sell the idea of a unified Francophone nation in its education system, so, too, have the Japanese government and intellectuals attempted to erase the heterogeneous ethnic makeup of Japan, teaching Japan to the masses via education and media as “One nation, one race, one language.” And they have done a very thorough job. I haven’t met many folks who don’t think of Japan as a singular, special, and unified people.
What surprised me most is the fact that this idealized idea of Japan as a homogenous people really didn’t solidify until post WWII, and mostly in the mid-1960’s. Of course, western Japanologists helped support this lie, too.
I had been taught this myth before I came to Japan and had believed it during my first years in Japan, even though I knew firsthand of the presence of Okinawan, Ainu, Burakumin, Korean, Chinese, Filipino, Brazilian, Iranian, Peruvian, African, Russian, Indian, Bangladeshi and Canadian, US, Australian and numerous European peoples, etc. living in Japan. Basically, all nations’ peoples are represented here, although this author argues they are primarily concentrated in the larger cities.
But even in our small city in northern Hokkaido, we have Filipino, Australian, German, Russian, Swedish, Iranian, Indian, Ainu, US, Taiwanese, Chinese, Korean, and Canadian peoples, and an array of multiethnic peoples, so I am not sure of this emphasis on ethnic richness as being only in the larger cities. Rather, I think it more that, just as most Wajin Japanese live in large cities, so do the ethnicities. For some reason, I blindly ignored these facts of diversity and saw Japan as a remarkably singular nation, culturally and racially. I think I felt the older groups (the Ainu, the Okinawan, the Korean and the Chinese people had more or less disappeared into the Japanese cultural soup, and were, by and large, Japanese. And then, the rest of the ‘newer’ immigrants were here temporarily, soon to return to their homelands (and that included me)).
It wasn’t until I started reading maybe ten years ago about the inane and problematic concept of ‘race’ that I began to question deeply my own country’s racialized language, and then, later, to turn a clearer lens to my view of Japan. As you know, race is not a scientific categorization of peoples: it is based primarily on assumptions made by physical characteristics and cultural behavior, the former argument is nebulous and contradictory as a designator (for example, dark or pale gradations of skin can occur in many peoples as can curly or straight hair, and why aren’t types of toenails included?;-)), and the reason people developed different ‘looks’ had to do with the geographical fact that, way back then, people didn’t travel or intermarry often (and they still don’t, really!) and the latter argument depends on one’s upbringing and society. Scientists have proven, via genetic testing, that we humans are the same: there isn’t enough deviation in anyone’s DNA to qualify one group of people as another ‘race.’ We easily say that a sparrow and an eagle are both birds, but we can’t say the same of different human beings! Maybe not the best analogy, since those two birds likely have significant DNA differences, and we humans simply don’t!….Yet the sad ability of societies to persist in classifying humans into different races continues ad nauseum, and even I find myself falling into the trap at times…hard not to, with all the indoctrination going on.
Anyway, that was a little rant, back to the point. Next time you hear someone talk of Japan as an Island nation that was closed off for 300 years, hence forming a special unified peoples, remember this: Many nations are ‘island nations’ and historically-speaking, being an island nation actually aided the intermixing of cultures (this is how the Wajin got to Japan in the first place! This is how they adopted Chinese philosophies, religions and a writing system, Korean pottery, and Portuguese bread!). Also, the Tokugawa Shogunate did not close off outsiders for 300 years; they only centralized the control of the ports. Trade with and travel to foreign nations continued throughout that time, and many ideas and goods continued to be brought in under Tokugawa rule. These are the two most prevalent arguments I hear by Japanese (and others) to argue the uniqueness (and often superiority) over other cultures, but these arguments cannot hold true.
Furthermore, from the Meiji (1868) era on up until the end of WWII, the successive Japanese governments aggressively sought empire expansion and attempted to force assimilation of the so-called conquered peoples of the Ainu Mosir, Ryuku kingdom (Okinawa), Taiwan, Manchuria, Korea, the Philippines, etc. by outlawing their customs, languages and teaching Japanese in the Japan-run schools. They even tried to control their diet and way of dress. Thus, during this long imperialist and expansionist stage (inspired by the western nations, by the way), many ethnicities were encouraged to become ‘Japanese’, were designated legal Japanese citizens (though prejudice and discrimination were the norm, of course) and inter-marriages were encouraged. From this alone, we can see that Japan is and never was a ‘pure’ blood nation, no more than the Britain is or was.
This is a very important book for me because it validates the multi-ethnic character of Japan and opens the possibilities for more acceptance and knowledge about other ethnicities. I could go on and on, but, just read the book, okay? Now the difficult task for me: how do I teach this without students feeling attacked– from seeing it as a troublesome, uncomfortable, identity-breaking truth? I hope to teach it so that they see the truth as a saving grace, as a reason for celebration, culminating in a richer national identity. Wish me luck.
