Monday, October 10, 2011

Columbus Didn't Discover Us: Native People's Perspectives on the Columbus Legacy (documentary)

youtube version pt. 1
youtube version pt. 2


Happy Genocide Day! | Truthout

Happy Genocide Day! | Truthout

the canary effect (documentary)

THE CANARY EFFECT - Kill the Indian, Save the Man.
Based on facts, the Award Winning documentary, The Canary Effect is a culmination of Yellow Thunder Woman’s first hand experience growing up as a Native American and Robin’s passionate empathy of the need to bring such truths to a wider audience.  This is the directors, Robin Davey & Yellow Thunder Woman’s debut film and has been a hit on the International film festival circuit.
Delving deep into the often misunderstood and frequently over looked historic realities if the American Indian, The Canary Effect follows the terrifying and horrific abuses instilled upon the Indigenous people of North America, and details the genocidal practices of the US government and its continuing affects on present
day Indian country.
Featuring interviews with the leading scholars and experts on Indian issues including controversial author Ward Churchill, the film brings together the past and present in a way never before captured so eloquently and boldly on film.



fucking powerful!! i cried all the way through this SOLID piece!! wow!!!

The Goats- Tricks of the Shade

"Columbus killed more indians than Hitler did jews, but on his birthday you get sales on shoes"

JR & PH7 - Fast Lane Speeding feat Oddisee (SertOne Remix)

dope!! - Protest Columbus Day, Genocide, Indigenous Holocaust 1492 - Protest Columbus Day, Genocide, Indigenous Holocaust 1492

Sunday, October 9, 2011

Commentary: In Honor of Steve Jobs, Become a Friend to the Congo | News | BET

Commentary: In Honor of Steve Jobs, Become a Friend to the Congo | News | BET

Yellow Man’s Burden: Ainu Subjugation and the Development of Racist Ideology in Japan

Yellow Man’s Burden:
Ainu Subjugation and the Development of Racist Ideology in Japan
Christopher Fields
Japanese Civilization
December 3, 2001
    In 1990, then Japanese Minister of Justice Seiroku Kajima made an analogy in a speech about how prostitution ruins a neighborhood, stating “It is like in America when blacks move into a neighborhood, and whites are forced to leave” (Chideya 46).  Such statements by Japanese officials are not uncommon, as even ex-prime minister Nakasone continuously shared his belief in the intellectual inferiority of American minorities while in office (Dube online).  The trajectory between Commodore Perry’s display of an enslaved African and Kajima’s comment is marked with the introduction and perpetuation of Western imperialist ideology into Japan.  By the late 19th century, those in America’s elite class had already adopted a racial ideology to rationalize the genocide of Native Americans and the subjugation of the “imported” Africans’ descendents, under the propagandistic guise of “progress” and “civilization versus savagery.”  As Social Darwinism became the trademark of “civilized” discourse within this racial ideology, the Japanese elite too found complicity with constructions of race through the colonization of Hokkaido and its Ainu people.  Therein, Ainu subjugation helped Japan petition Western powers for recognition as a “civilized state.”  While the Japanese had already adopted Chinese Confucian ideas of the barbarian and the civilized, the racialization of the Ainu people cemented justifications for their continued physical and psychological exploitation, being used as yardsticks for Japanese progress into Western ideals of civilization (Siddle 27-32).  Studies on the Ainu, both by Japanese and Western researchers, have even recently tended to appear only within the fields of anthropology and archaeology, with almost ubiquitous reference to them as a “dying race” (Siddle 6).  As with elite America today, such racial ideology persists in Japan as continued rationalization for state imperialism and societal exclusion.     It is important to note that an understanding of the foundations (or lack thereof) of racial theory necessitates an acknowledgement of power relations.  Modern genetics has recently confirmed the purely ideological nature of race.  It is therefore conceived of, in progressive academia, as a rationalizing social construct that sanctions assertions of a group’s social, physical and political superiority (Ackermann 14).  Siddle points out an elucidating statement from cultural commentator Robert Miles about the perpetuation of race:

There are no ‘races’ and therefore no ‘race relations’.  There is only a belief that there are such things, a belief that is used by some social groups to construct an Other (and therefore the Self) in thought as a prelude to exclusion and domination, and by other social groups to define Self (and so to construct an Other) as a means of resisting that exclusion.  (Miles 42)

However, the concept of race continues to sustain hegemony within both Japanese and American societies.  It could be argued that in Japan more so than America, the dialogue of race is even more overtly tied to nationalism (and by proxy imperialism) with the fetishization and mass adoption of Nihonjinron.
     The Ainu were not always a colonized people.  Dating back even before the first historical chronicles of Japan, The Ainu had already established sovereignty in the Ezo area (now Hokkaido) (Hudson 38, 206-208).  Indeed, the fairly recent reidentification of the Ainu nation is at the crux of Ainu assertions of not simply being a passively dominated group “in need of social welfare, but a ‘nation’ desirous of decolonization” (Siddle 171).  Therein, historical identification of Ainu nationhood is not trivial.  Up throughout the 12th century, Japanese chroniclers generalized those who were not assimilated into central Japanese rule into one category:  Emishi (sometimes Ebisu) and no ethnic distinctions were drawn  (Walker, 20).  Even though several attempts at “unification” (read: expansionism) up through the Tokugawa era endeavored to submit the Ainu to Japanese rule, the Ainu were able successfully to offer resistance up through the end of the tyrannical Nobunaga years (20-27).  The Japanese government then subdued its interest in the Ezo area into redeveloping trade relationships (46-47).
    Not until the Tokugawa government granted the Matsumae clan exclusive rights to trade with the Ainu, did official policy towards the Ainu begin to truly shift the balance in power. The motivations of this first exclusively sanctioned “Ainu-Wajin” relationship originated out of greed (what Matsumae Yoshihiro perceived to be Ezo’s “mountains of gold”) and ended in ever-evolving trade (and power) disparities (Walker 36).  The exclusive policy restricted Ainu trade potential by routing them through a single resource, but also inhibited cultural exchange between Ainu and Japanese while granting the Ainu token protections from other aggressive Japanese.  The tone of the edict-pseudo-benevolent prospectus-established the subsequent tone of Ainu discourse that continues to linger even today (37). The display of a concern for “practical” liberties may appear to conflict with central ideologies of cultural (and, soon after, ethnic) hierarchies, but they are truly one and the same as such paternalistic assumptions reflect assumed ideological power structures.  In reality, the Matsumae abused the Ainu (both physically and psychologically).  The Ainu practically lost all autonomy, lost all former land (being resettled), and lost all freedom (forced into labor)  (Siddle 46).  Many of the Ainu women were forced into sexual slavery, many of the men into physical slavery (Honda xx).  They fell ill to wajin diseases.  In 1807, the Edo officials estimated the census population of Ainu to be 26,256.  However, in 1853, that number dropped by 32% to 17,810   (Walker 182).  Disease, along with direct subjugation, helped the Japanese to define the Ainu as weak.
     When the Tokugawa era government became interested in developing a strong presence in Hokkaido as prompted by impending Russian threat and the need to open a port for trade demanded by Western treaty, the Matsumae had already established rule over the area (Siddle 39).  The perceived economic gains as expressed by period chroniclers such as widely read Honda Toshiaki catalyzed the changing views of Ainu (Hudson 31).  After the state eventually won Hokkaido after Shakushain’s War, the Ainu were forced into one-way assimilation into Japanese culture.  Being coerced from a hunter-gatherer culture into an agrarian one subsequently made it heavily dependent on trade with the rest of Japan (71-72).  In much the same way the American black was ascribed inferior traits for having been dominated, so did the Japanese sharpen their elitist attitudes towards the Ainu.  Within this context, a vicious circle develops wherein the subjugated are seen as inferior for being conquered-and their being inferior is reason enough for them to be conquered (without moral regret) (Siddle 9).  Indeed, the first official history of Hokkaido in 1918 states that the “responsibility of colonization of Hokkaido” was placed upon the Japanese because “no other superior race was in contact with the Ezo”  (Weiner 113).
    Ideas familiar to race in Japan developed prior to the introduction of Social Darwinism within the realm of Confucianist beliefs in barbarians and were heavily prevalent prior to and including the Tokugawa era.  Outsiders were deemed as polluted, in the Japanese mind, as those relegated to the buraku class (Siddle 27).  Even today, the term for outsider (gaijin) has a negative (and racialized) connotation in contrast with the “racially pure homogenous” Japanese (Dale 91-92).  However, the term barbarian applied equally among any “ethnicity,” and hence equally to Ainu as well as to Dutch.  However, the Dutch eventually became a gateway to Western thought, whereas the mere humanity of the Ainu became increasingly dismissed (Siddle 78).  Western racial theory helped to shape the course of this differentiation and provided the illusion of certainty that would leave Japan perpetually obsessed with racial identity.  It is not a coincidence that Japanese actively adopted this racist ideology as “the half century or more during which the Japanese initially turned to the West for education coincided almost exactly with the period when scientific racism dominated the natural and social sciences in Europe and the United States” (Dower, 204).
    Forced to contend with one-sided treaties and other Western perils that threatened the Japanese empire during the Meiji period, Japan believed that it needed to parallel Western culture in order to compete with it.  Wholesale adoption of Western learning began to take place among the elites and when Social Darwinism was introduced to Japan in 1878 (early Meiji period) by Edward Morse, it was quickly adopted as a method of distancing itself from other Asian nations in defense against Western hegemony (Laurent 486).  Despite their whitish skin, the Ainu became the perfect testing ground of this new racial theory.  By adopting its own oppressed minority, Japanese could, among other roles, play the paternal caregiver and hence display themselves to be a superior race worthy of the same “racial” respect as white Americans.
    Many of the pre-existing stereotypes of the Ainu people were incorporated into the new racial theory of Social Darwinism.  Prior to Ainu racialization, portraits of the Ainu oftentimes portrayed them as hairy, aggressive, non-human (Siddle 49).  It was commonly accepted by Japanese society that the Ainu were half-man and half-dog (42-44).  The Japanese often perverted Ainu into the pejorative Aino-meaning half-breed (84).  With the advent of Social Darwinism, these stereotypes were merely exacerbated.  The scope of research in this new field Ainu Studies was defined by these pre-existing stereotypes (86).  Siddle states:  “Within [the] framework of domination, scholars began refining their classification of Ainu inferiority”  (85).  Some of the studies on the intellectual inferiority of Ainu built off the old prejudices against Ainu counting systems.  The practice of stereotyping Ainu as incapable of mathematics characteristically began in the context of colonization and superiority wherein Wajin humiliated or beat any Ainu who would not agree to a counting of “begin, one, two, .. nine, ten, end” in trades of furs and fish.  This way, Wajin “could always get twelve items for the price of ten” (Arbuthnot “Political Background” online).  The stereotype that came to reaffirm this cruel practice soon became a part of Wajin common sense.  Studies in eugenics and serology soon followed wherein the perceived aggressiveness of the Ainu was attributed to the predominance in blood type O within the population as compared to Wajin majority of A and AB type.  Even studies on Ainu hygiene stemmed from the general belief that all Ainu had “unbearable body odor” (Siddle 84-87).  The popularity of such research (even up through the 1950s) is evident in any anthropological bibliography of Ainu studies.  Therein, one would almost certainly find studies such as “Anthropometrical facts concerning the Ainu, Japanese and mixed Ainu school children,” “Hair on the lower limbs of the Japanese and the Ainu” and (most tellingly) “A racial history of the Ainu and their population structure” (Gusinde 60).  By constantly reaffirming the “scientific validity” of racial theory, the Japanese confirmed their place on the top rungs of the racial hierarchy.
    Doubtless, the image of a lost “white race” conquered by an Asian nation immediately troubled “white” Westerners.  However, this troubled psycho-political perspective may have been integral to the Western induction of Japan from a “heathen” nation to a “civilized” one.  Before the Japanese began actively to appropriate Western racial thinking, the Japanese themselves stood to undergo the same, cold dismissive pseudo-scientific and politically dominating treatment that they themselves imposed upon the Ainu.  After all, the Japanese themselves occupied the middle rung of Western racial hierarchy, as those of the “yellow race” first transcribed by French diplomat Arthur de Gobineau in his work Essai sur l’Inegalite des Races Humaines and hence were fair territory in the game of domination and exploitation (Koshiro xi).  Postwar occupation sentiments of the Japanese as “docile, meek, little” only exacerbated conceptions that had almost been erased before the onset of the Russo-Japanese War  (Koshiro 67).  Nevertheless, as Japan emerged as an increasingly prominent imperialist power, it soon became clear that the Western world would have to redefine its racial categorizations.  For having assimilated Western culture, the Japanese slowly came to be considered modern.  Westerners needed to reckon this assimilation, as “in mind, body, speech, thought, ways, institutions, [and] mental initiative, [the Japanese were] the most un-Mongolian people in Asia” (Henning 160).  Indeed, Japan was considered to be more civilized and westernized than Russia.  “[Japan], though Oriental, stands for modern western civilization, and its success will mean … the occidentalization of the East.  The other, though European, stands for an absolutism that is Oriental, and its success will mean the perpetuation of ignorance and the reign of force” (144).
    To come to terms with the Japanese’ new status, Americans began to denote the similarities between Japanese and white Americans, more than their differences.  They sought to differentiate the Japanese from other Asians.  To mollify fully suspicions that their racial theory was not totally bunk, some even sought evidence that the Japanese were “somehow Christian and white” (139).  In order to understand completely the Japanese in the context of race, the Caucasoid Ainu had to be taken into account and dialogue on the “Ainu race” became a crucial element of Japanese racial categorization.  Many Western scholars who traveled to Japan were quick to collude with Japanese academics in caricaturing the Ainu as drunk, hairy, aggressive and almost non-human.  Race was such a prominent issue when addressing the Ainu that one American writer palliated “‘antipathy to water and utter ignorance of soap’ made it difficult to determine their skin color” (152).  In 1904, the Ainu were brought to Saint Louis to be a part of the World’s Fair Louisiana Purchase Exposition in an ethnological exhibit that displayed “more than thirty living groups of racial, ethnic and cultural types” (157).  This spawned an explosion of interest in Ainu studies in America.  Anthropology professor from the University of Chicago Frederick Starr who helped to bring the exhibition Ainus to Saint Louis wrote on the “physical characteristics of race” and acquiesced that “here we find a white race that has struggled and lost” (158).  Starr proposed that the Ainu were living proof that the “Caucasian race” was not biologically predestined to superiority.   However, Starr’s solution was dismissed by mainstream academia, which still sought to justify the Wajin-Ainu relationship in terms of its smooth color-gradation racial theory.  Another visiting professor to the exhibit, Paul Carus, concluded that if the Ainu were Caucasian, they would be a part of the Slavic branch of the Aryan race (158-159).  Also, the Japanese themselves were indeed reckoned, by some, to be of very similar “racial stock” as the inhabitants of England.  A Western theory emerged that the “Japanese race” was merely a composite of races:  “a fusion of Aino, Malay, Nigrito, Corean and Yamato.”  This intermixing of races was paralleled to the “racial” mixture underneath England’s heritage and stood to stand for the “best of all races.”  This way, both during the Russo-Japanese War and in observation of Wajin dominance over Ainu, it would be easy to restore faith in “Anglo-Saxon superiority” (159).  Nevertheless, Ainu subjugation contested western racial theory and American/British scholars and writers had to contort their own racial understandings in order to include this anomaly comfortably into their racial ideology.  This pre-Occupation speed bump in Western observance of racial theory caused Western scholars to think twice about the “yellow race.”
    Scientifically-sanctioned racial superiority influenced a continued fixation in Japan on racial theory and the Japanese’ own racial make-up.  Of course, around the burgeoning war period, especially after the Nanking Incident and before entry of the U.S. into WWII, this meant the re-eminence of Yamato bloodline exclusivity.  From this, we see that while the Japanese view of their own “racial heritage” and the Anglo-Saxon parallel offered by many Westerners may appear to be polar opposites, the two constructions of race serve the same purpose of justifying Japanese “racial superiority.”  Wartime Japanese identity is heavily influenced by an obsession with racial identity, as even evidenced in changes in the everyday WWII Japanese discourse of maintaining cultural and political solidarity in an expanding national empire.  Japanese social scientists used the word jinshu to denote the physical characteristics of race such as blood type, skin color, hair texture, etc.  Minzoku had a looser connotation, roughly equivalent to ethnos, which included such characteristics such as “common blood, culture, language, customs and religion” (Weiner 99).  Before the war period, social scientists were able to keep the two terms separate and in distinct contexts.  However, during wartime, the lines between the two meanings blurred, as concepts of nation and race became increasingly indistinguishable within the Japanese propaganda machine (98-99).  The new definition of minzoku came to represent “organic collectives … natural and spiritual communities which shared a common destiny” (Dower 267).  Put more bluntly, racial parameters were made more conspicuous in exclusions to true symbolic Japanese citizenship.  Such processes are not unique to Japan. Social theorist Robert Ackerman remarks: “The ‘citizen’ is not only defined against those who would be aliens or traitors and work against national goals; the citizen is also presented as a national ideal, a move that generates a latent logic of internal racism within every national formation” (Ackerman 125-126).  The idea of a nation-race solidified in such wartime titles as minzoku no osa (head of the people) for the Emperor.  An establishment of the criteria for “Japaneseness” emerged from the idea of a racialized minzoku in the form of Nihonjinron and in partnership with terms such as kokusui (national essence) and kokuminshugi (civic nationalism) was critical to the rise in nationalism in Japan (Weiner 102).
    Blood became essential in the definition of this “imagined Japanese community” (Yoshino 199).  Yoshino emphasizes that the idea of “Japanese blood” is also a social construction (202).  Indeed, the creation of a Japanese bloodline can be viewed as a pivot from the racialization of the Ainu.  In connection with the new definitions of race, the presence of the “other” (such as the Ainu, but also Koreans, burakumin to some extent, etc.) helped to sustain ideas of “indigenous purity” (Dale 52). Within the dialogue of Japanese blood, scholars even began to reinforce the tone of genetic determinism that was once strictly Eurocentric domain, wherein even prominent, well-educated scholars proclaimed that Japan’s “destiny as the ‘leading race’ in the world was divinely as well as genetically preordained” (Dower 221).  The logical consequences of adopting an ideology of Japanese genetic determinism and Ainu subjugation would be that the weak Ainu would quickly vanish (Siddle 106).  Therein, measures to the preserve the racial purity of the “Japanese” would even include the promotion of taboos against miscegenation, as “Ainu subjugation and inequality were in effect matters of blood” (112).
    This imagined blood community continues to shape societal definitions of exclusion and inclusion in present-day Japanese identity.  When Nakasone remarked in 1986 that Japan has no racial minorities, many “Japanese” agreed and have continued to perpetuate the myth that, even into today, living in a purportedly “homogenous society,” Japanese do not deal with racism (Macintyre par. 7).  This is simply not true.  The racism of many Japanese officials has not only (in the name of modernization) colluded with American white racism, but has also created its own dialogue of race at the exclusion of “the outsider” in Japan-who is more than often of a “conquered [but ignored] race.”  In making such statements, Nakasone would have to be equating the Japanese nation with Yamato bloodline in the tradition of the nation-race ideology of Nihonjinron.  The logical default on racially defined societal exclusivity, parallel to passive wartime regurgitations of theories on Aryan supremacy, is by nature racist.  Nakasone’s statement enraged the Ainu community and prompted them to elicit full recognition as Japanese members of society by the Japanese government (par. 7).  The idea of the forgotten Ainu is undoubtedly linked to the “dying race” theories that were prevalent at the thrust of Social Darwinism’s popularity in Japan.  In the 1880s, progressive Japanese social commentators such as Kita Masaaka remarked that the synonymity between “Ainu” and preconceptions of a “primitive, hairy, simpleton dying race” aggressively worked against Ainu assimilation into mainstream Japanese society (Siddle 111-112).  The same ideas are still integral to Japanese identity and compose the social forces of resistance to Ainu acceptance.
    Ainu identity, as hinted to by Miles, was influenced by its relationship with Wajin.  The efforts of Ainu to assimilate into Japanese culture could easily be mistaken for stories of resistance and assimilation of American “blacks” into “white culture.”  In both, one notices the creation of culturally distinctive elements and, by some, the abandon of those cultural distinctions for acceptance into “mainstream society.”  New Ainu rituals developed as psychological resistance to Wajin domination.  Despite popular Wajin myths to the contrary, the Ainu prided themselves on their complex accounting system of base-20 (which developed distinctly from Japanese base-10 mathematical methods) (Siddle 48).  More importantly, during the recent years of Ainu activism, the racial categorization of Ainu became an agent of pride within the Ainu community and was transformed into “[a] means of positive identification and empowerment” (Siddle 171).  The Ainu are publicly reclaiming their own identity and are attempting to do so outside of the prism of Ainu-Wajin relationships, but Siddle remarks that present-day scholars display little interest in recording the present Ainu movements attempt to “fuse culture and politics in a new discourse of ethnicity” (Siddle 7).
    However, current issues of cultural preservation are still intricately tangled and constantly positioned within and against the dominant narrative of “Ainu as dying race.”  Today, many Ainu are monolingual Japanese as a result of the discomfort of being associated with the “dying race” (Ostler par. 14 online).  Issues of autonomy and assimilation are very complex, and are even issues that arise in choosing narratives of Japanese pre-history:  whether or not to simply perceive the Jomon narrative of a dispersive group of Japanese tribes or to demand a distinctive presence in the Japanese narrative.  However, the dominant narrative promotes the idea of a “broader yet fundamentally unitary Japanese cultural complex” which serves to “rob Ainu culture of both its autonomy and its historicity, reducing Ainu cultural practices to the level of traditional local customs that elsewhere throughout the country have somehow survived into the modern age” (Levin 2 online).  The strides towards becoming accepted into Japanese society have in a way been served up as an excuse to erase Ainu culture “for the sake of modernity.”
     Western racial ideology juxtaposed the Japanese between the potential of the permanent Western status of inferiority and the desire to be accepted as a “modern” state.  With the Ainu exhibition in the Saint Louis World’s Fair, the Japanese had an opportunity to topple racist ideology in support of Prof. Starr’s conclusions.  However, the adopted racial ideology only developed into ideas of Japanese superiority and eventually, in the shock of post-war defeat, a return to status quo support of white racism.  All of these perturbations of racism in Japan sprung off of the backs of Ainu subjugation, which were continuously defined within the realm of racist rationale.  The residues of Ainu racialization continue to affect definitions of Japanese inclusion and exclusion and social problems resultant from Ainu assimilation left yet to be reconciled.
Works Cited

Ackerman, Robert. Heterogeneities:  Race, Gender, Class, Nation, and State. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1996.Arbuthnot, Michael. Worlds in Collision:  A Look at the Impact of Modern Legislation on the Ainu Culture of Japan. 1 Dec. 2001 <>.
Chideya, Farai. Don’t Believe the Hype:  Fighting Cultural Misinformation about African-Americans. New York: Penguine Books, 1995.
Dale, Peter. The Myth of Japanese Uniqueness. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1986.
Dower, John. War Without Mercy:  Race and Power in the Pacific War. New York: Pantheon Books, 1986.
Dikötter, Frank, ed. The Construction of Racial Identities in China and Japan:  Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1997.
Gusinde, Martin, and Chiye Sano. An Annoted Bibliography of Ainu Studies by Japanese Scholars. Nagoya: Nanzan University, 1962.
Henning, Joseph. Outposts of Civilization:  Race, Religion, and the Formative Years of American-Japanese Relations. New York: New York University Press, 2000.
Hudson, Mark. Ruins of Identity:  Ethnogenesis in the Japanese Islands. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1999.
Koshiro, Yukiko. Trans-Pacific Racisms and the U.S. Occupation of Japan. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999.
Laurent, John. “Varieties of Social Darwinism in Australia, Japan, and Hawaii, 1883-1921.” Darwin’s Laboratory. Eds. Macleod, Roy, and Philip Rehbock. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1994. 474-510.
Levin, Mark. Essential Commodities and Racial Justice:  Using Constitutional Protection of Japan’s Indigenous Ainu People to Inform Understandings of the United States and Japan. 4 Apr. 2001. New York University. 1 Dec. 2001 <>.
Macintyre, Donald. Meeting the First Inhabitants:  Despite Years of Prejudice, Japan's Aboriginal Ainu are Beginning to Reclaim their Unique Identity. 30 Nov. 2001
Miles, Robert. Race after ‘Race Relations’. London: Rutledge, 1993.
Ostler, Nicholas. Editorial Review: Matsumura - Studies in EL 3. 1 Dec 2001 <>.
Siddle, Richard. Race, Resistance and the Ainu of Japan.  London: Rutledge, 1996.
Today in Asian History: September 22. Ed. Clayton Dube. UCLA Center East Asian Studies 1 Dec. 2001 .
Walker, Brett. The Conquest of Ainu Lands:  Ecology and Culture in Japanese Expansion, 1590-1800. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001.
Weiner, Michael. “The Invention of Identity:  Race and Nation in Pre-War Japan.” Dikötter 96-117.
Yoshino, Kosaku. “The Discourse on Blood and Racial Identity in Contemporary Japan.” Dikötter 199-211.



How Japan views black people (Part 2)

damn!! this shit is fucking disgusting!! i remember i once wanted to live in japan prior to getting well into japanese anime. from my love/hate relationship w/japanese anime i saw how overwhelmingly white the characters were--whiteness was all out glorified! you no doubt see the adoption of a white supremacist view of people of african descent in this.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...