ABSTRACT
This paper will first review the debate over the definition and recognition of Indigenous peoples with regard to the people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa, focusing on the colonial history, specifically regarding the case of the lawsuit calling for the return of the Ryukyuan ancestral remains. Then, after an overview of the history of the lawsuit calling for the return of the Ryukyuan ancestors, which was instigated in 2018, I will present what has been achieved so far, the challenges that remain, and the prospects for the future. There, the ‘colonialism by academic knowledge’ nurtured since the colonial period will be exposed, and the recognition by the state of the people of Ryukyu and Okinawa as Indigenous peoples, and the possibility of solidarity among civil society and domestic and international Indigenous and minority peoples will be analyzed.
1. Introduction
On 21 April 2022, a judgment was rendered in the Kyoto District Court against Kyoto University in a lawsuit calling for the return of the Ryukyuan remains. The court ruled on 4 December 2018 that Masako Kameya, Takeshi Tamagushiku, Yasukatsu Matsushima (chief plaintiff), Kantoku Teruya (deceased), and Minoru Kinjo were the plaintiffs and Kyoto University was the defendant, and after 11 trials, the final legal brief was submitted on 20 January 2022, and the Court judgment was that the defendant, Kyoto University had not committed any illegal acts ().Footnote1 Until now, the repatriation of the ancestral remains of the Ainu people has been the focus of attention in Japan, while little attention has been paid to the repatriation of the Ryukyuan ancestral remains. In the case of the return of the ancestors of the Ainu people, who have been recognised as an Indigenous people in Japan since 2008, the Ainu people have been demanding the return of the ancestors possessed by Hokkaido University since the 1980s. A lawsuit was filed against universities across Japan in 2012 demanding the return of the ancestors, and the Ainu ancestors were returned to Kotan (an Ainu settlement area) as a result of the resolution of the lawsuit.Footnote2 However, the government has decided to consolidate 1323 ancestors, which cannot be identified by individuals, at the Upopoi (symbolic space for ethnic coexistence) established in Shiraoi in 2019 for commemoration.Footnote3 Such a response is contrary to the international trend in countries such as the United States and Australia, which have established ethical guidelines and legal systems for the return of the ancestral remains of Indigenous peoples, whereby the ancestors are returned to the community if certain provisions are met.Footnote4 Since this is the case even for the return of the ancestors of the Ainu people, the return of the Ryukyuan ancestral remains has not received much attention in light of the return of the ancestors of Indigenous peoples around the world. This is also since the Ryukyuan have no national recognition as Indigenous peoples in Japan, although there are recommendations for recognising Indigenous peoples at the United Nations (UN).
Table 1. The events on the return of Ryukyuan ancestral remains from 2018 to 2022.
In this paper, I will first review the debate over the definition and recognition of Indigenous peoples and one element of that definition, colonial history, regarding the stolen Ryukyuan ancestral remains. Then, after an overview of the history of the lawsuit calling for return of the Ryukyuan ancestral remains, which began in 2018, I will present what has been achieved so far, the challenges that remain, and the prospects for the future. There, the ‘colonialism by academic knowledge’ that was fostered and has been perpetuated since the colonial period will be exposed. Furthermore, the recognition by the state of the people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa as Indigenous peoples, and the possibility of solidarity among civil society and domestic and international Indigenous and minority peoples will analyzed. In order to conduct the analyses, the author of this paper used primary sources such as documents and testimonies submitted by the plaintiffs of lawsuit calling for return of the Ryukyuan ancestral remains, as well as web-based video materials and newspaper materials created by the plaintiffs and their supporters. The secondary sources used included books and articles written by the plaintiffs and researchers.
2. Indigenous peoples and the people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa
Ryukyu/ Okinawa often refers to the area south of the Okinawa Islands, including the Miyako and Yaeyama archipelagos, but it may also include the Amami Islands. Currently, the Amami Islands are in Kagoshima Prefecture, while the other islands are in Okinawa Prefecture. The Ryukyu Kingdom has existed there since the fifteenth century. The people of the Ryukyu Islands have maintained diverse cultures and practices in various regions, while also having some aspects in common. However, to date, they have experienced domination and oppression through the modernisation of Japan and militarisation by the United States.
In addition to the geographical scope of the Ryukyu/ Okinawa, the activities from the perspective of the Indigenous peoples have used various expressions such as ‘Okinawans’, ‘Uchinanchu’, ‘Ryukyuans’, and ‘Ryukyu peoples’, and their expressions and generic names are still under discussion. In this paper, while understanding this ambiguity, I will temporarily use the term, the people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa.Footnote5
The people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa have raised issues from the perspective of Indigenous peoples domestically and internationally, and have sought guarantees of their human rights. However, the Japanese government did not mention the people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa as Indigenous peoples in the reports of the UN human rights treaty bodies such as the ‘Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination’ (CERD) and the ‘Human Rights Committee’ (HRC).Footnote6
Since 2008 the Japanese government has not recognised the Ryukyu/ Okinawa people as Indigenous peoples, although it has acknowledged that they have inherited a rich culture and traditions that are characteristic of their long history.Footnote7 One of the reasons for this is the lack of an established definition of Indigenous peoples. The Japanese government has stated this since the drafting of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and reiterated it upon the adoption of UNDRIP in September 2007 and at meetings with the ‘Association of Indigenous Peoples in the Ryukyu’ (AIPR), the ‘Shimin Gaikou Centre’ (SGC), and others at the ‘World Conference on Indigenous Peoples’ held in September 2014 as a UN Special Session.Footnote8 Among the reasons for it, the Japanese government stated that Okinawans are ‘Japanese citizens’ and are guaranteed equal rights with regard to the enjoyment of their culture, the belief and practice of their religion, and the use of their language with other citizens, while at the same time claiming that they have unique biological and cultural characteristics and that there is no widespread socially accepted recognition of them as Indigenous peoples. The Japanese government has also taken an ambiguous position in its answers to the Diet regarding the historical status and recognition of the Ryukyu Islands, stating that it cannot state definitively whether the Ryukyu Islands were sovereign at the time, their status under international law, or the implications of their annexation.Footnote9
On the other hand, international human rights organisations began by recognising the Ryukyu/ Okinawa people as a minority or unique group and now recognise them as Indigenous peoples. For example, the CERD recognised in 2001 that the Ryukyu/ Okinawa people are covered by the convention in its summary findings through its review of the Japanese government’s report, and recommended that information be provided at the next review.Footnote10 In 2010, the Council expressed concern about the continued discrimination faced by the people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa and recommended broad consultation with them.Footnote11 During this period, the UN Special Rapporteur on Racial Discrimination (Doudou Diène), who visited Japan in 2005, identified the people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa as a ‘national minority’,Footnote12 and in 2009 UNESCO also recognised the Ryukyuan languages as unique languages.Footnote13 The first time that an international human rights organisation clearly described the people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa as an Indigenous peoples was in 2008, when the ‘Center for Civil and Political Rights’ (CCPR) examined the Japanese government’s report.Footnote14 The summary findings of the CCPR’s review recommended that the people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa be recognised as Indigenous peoples under domestic law, and that their cultural heritage and traditional ways of life be protected, preserved, and promoted; their land rights be recognised; and their children be provided with appropriate opportunities to receive education in their own language and culture. In 2014, the CERD also expressed concern that the Japanese government had not recognised the people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa as Indigenous peoples and their traditional rights to land, resources, etc., and recommended that these rights be guaranteed, among other things.Footnote15 In 2018, the CERD also recommended the recognition of the Ryukyu/ Okinawa people as Indigenous peoples and the strengthening of measures to protect their rights.Footnote16
Thus, in response to the ambiguous response of the Japanese government, the human rights bodies of the United Nations, especially CCPR and CERD, have reiterated references to recognising the people of Ryukyu/Okinawa as Indigenous peoples.
3. History of colonialism in Ryukyu/ Okinawa
Although there is some debate as to whom the term Indigenous peoples refers to, one of the key elements is the perspective of colonialism.Footnote17 In understanding the activities of the Indigenous peoples in Ryukyu/ Okinawa, it has been proposed to recognise the history of domination and oppression by Japan and the United States with this perspective in mind. One starting point dates back to 1609. In that year, the Satsuma Clan, with the permission of the Edo Shogunate, invaded Ryukyu and the Ryukyu Islands came under a certain degree of control by the Satsuma Clan, which was seen as a forced incorporation into the shogunate system.Footnote18 On the other hand, Ryukyu maintained a tributary relationship with the Ming Dynasty in China, and in the nineteenth century, Ryukyu concluded treaties with the United States, the Netherlands, and France, and maintained its independent status.Footnote19 In the latter half of the nineteenth century, however, Japan began to integrate itself as a modern nation following the Meiji Restoration, and, through the Haihan-chiken (the abolition of the domain system and the establishment of the prefecture system) in 1871, Ryukyu was placed under the jurisdiction of Kagoshima Prefecture. The following year, the Ryukyu domain was established, and after the suppression and dismantling of the Ryukyu Kingdom, Okinawa Prefecture was established in 1879 with military force.Footnote20
The people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa have also been subjected to assimilationist policies, imperialist education, and discriminatory treatment. The society, culture, customs, manners and language of Ryukyu/ Okinawa were considered barbaric and backward, and Japanese officials prohibited the people of Ryukyu/Okinawan from speaking their native languages, for example, by imposing penalties such as putting dialect tags (Hogen fuda) on students who spoke their native languages in public schools. Japanese suffrage was denied, and there was discrimination when marrying the Yamatunchu (mainland Japanese) or renting housing.Footnote21 At the 5th National Industrial Exhibition held in Osaka in 1903, the Ryukyu/ Okinawa people, along with the Ainu and Taiwanese Indigenous peoples, were ‘displayed’ in an off-site pavilion as an example of the ‘different races’ of Japan’s neighbouring regions. This is known as the ‘Academic Anthropology Museum Case’ in which Shogoro Tsuboi (1863–1913), the founder of the Anthropological Society in Japan and an ethnologist at Tokyo Empirical University, was involved and it reveals the discriminatory view of other ethnic groups in Japanese society.Footnote22 In opposition to such discriminatory treatment, Okinawan studies and the theory of ‘Nichiryu Doso Ron (the theory of the same ancestry of the Ryukyu Islands as that of the Japanese)’, led by Ifa Fuyu (1876–1947) and others, emphasised that the people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa had the same ethnic background as the ‘Japanese’ and that Ryukyu/ Okinawa had its own uniqueness.Footnote23 Against the backdrop of the liberal civil rights movement led by Noboru Jahana (1865–1908) and others, the right of suffrage for the people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa was recognised in 1912, but only in a few areas, and was then extended to all areas in 1920.Footnote24 However, the discriminatory treatment of the Ryukyu/ Okinawan people continued, and World War II also claimed many victims. In particular, the Battle of Okinawa, centered on the ground war on the island of Okinawa in 1945, resulted in the death of approximately 200,000 people, more than 90,000 of whom were civilians. Ryukyu/ Okinawa was used as a ‘dumping ground’ to postpone the ‘Battle of Mainland Japan’, and not only its nature, but also Shuri Castle, its townscape, and many cultural assets were destroyed. Moreover, during the Battle, the people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa spiking native language were killed because mainland Japanese soldiers couldn’t comprehend it and treated persons speaking a language other than Japanese as spies.Footnote25
After the war, Ryukyu/ Okinawa came under the control of the United States. While the process of liberating colonies around the world was underway, Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which came into effect between the United States and Japan in April 1952, stipulated that Japan would agree to any proposal by the United States to place Ryukyu/ Okinawa under trusteeship with the United States as the sole administering power, and until that proposal the United States was to have some or all of the administrative authority.Footnote26 Although Ryukyu/ Okinawa could not become a trusteeship area without a proposal from the United States, it can be seen that placing Ryukyu/ Okinawa in the preliminary stage with the possibility of such a proposal was convenient for the United States military to govern, and expand and maintain bases there. For example, at the peace conference, Ambassador Plenipotentiary John F. Dulles recognised Japan’s ‘latent (residual) sovereignty’ over Ryukyu/ Okinawa. In other words, Japan’s sovereignty over Ryukyu/ Okinawa remained, but the United States was placed in the ambiguous legal position of having administrative authority over the islands.Footnote27 In 1953, there was also a declaration of a ‘blue-sky policy’ in which the United States military would exercise power over Ryukyu/ Okinawa until threats and tensions in the Far East ceased.Footnote28
Under these circumstances, human rights abuses against the people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa became even more rampant after the war, especially as the United States military forcibly seized people’s land with bayonets and bulldozers and proceeded to build bases, forcing many people to move in and out of Ryukyu/ Okinawa. In addition, the Japanese Constitution did not apply under the United States military rule, and even though the people of Ryukyuan/ Okinawa were not considered to have lost their Japanese citizenship, they still needed a Japanese travel document to go to the mainland.
The people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa opposed and resisted such treatment in various ways. For example, against a background of opposition to the seizure of land by the United States military in various areas from local residents, or perhaps in response to such opposition, in April 1954 the Legislation of the Ryukyu government unanimously passed a ‘Petition Resolution on the Disposition of Military Land’, in which it proposed four principles demanding appropriate payment and compensation for the seizure of land by the U.S. military. The Ryukyu Government was established by U.S. National Government Decree No. 13, ‘Establishment of the Government of the Ryukyu Islands’ in 1952, and the specific organisation and operation of the Legislation of Ryukyu government were described, along with the executive and judicial branches, in the United States. National Government Decree 68, ‘Ryukyu Government Code’, in the same year. The Ryukyuan government was to have full political authority in Ryukyu/ Okinawa, and the Legislation was to have authority over legislative matters. However, its authority was also subject to the authority of the United States National Government through proclamations and decrees. The 1954 resolution of the Legislation of the Ryukyuan government was also negatively addressed in the June 1956 recommendation (Price recommendation) of the United States House of Representatives Military Affairs Committee through its survey mission to Ryukyu/ Okinawa, leading to a mass movement throughout the Ryukyu/ Okinawa region. This was called the ‘island-wide struggle’ and was settled in a way that elicited concessions.Footnote29
In addition, the Declaration on the Granting of Colonial Independence adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1960 stated that there would be a rapid and unconditional end to colonialism, and as one aspect of this goal, that all peoples would have the right to self-determination. Referring to the Declaration, the Legislation of the Ryukyu Government adopted the ‘Resolution Requesting the Return of Administrative Authority’ in 1962, in which it stressed the injustice of the United States rule against the will of the people, while also referring to the trusteeship system and other factors. Although this was one of the budding movements to link the situation in Ryukyu/ Okinawa to the international framework, the picture of foreign domination was not improved as a result.Footnote30
However, with the expectation that the human rights situation would improve with the return of Okinawa to Japan under the Japanese Constitution, which advocated a break from the United States military rule and peace. Growing movement to return Okinawa to its homeland, Ryukyu/ Okinawa was returned to Japan in 1972 through the Okinawa Reversion Agreement but the people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa were not even involved in decision-making in this agreement. Therefore, the future status of the Ryukyu was made by the United States and by Japan. Approximately 70% of the dedicated the United States military facilities in Japan are still concentrated in Okinawa Prefecture, and various human rights abuses such a number of rape incidents by the military personal continue in relation to the United States military. Under these circumstances, efforts as Indigenous peoples have been developed based on the above recognition of the history and continuity of colonialism through domination and oppression by Japan and the United States. One such effort is the campaign for the return of Ryukyuan ancestral remains, which will be discussed next.
4. Stolen Ryukyuan human remains
The collection of Ryukyuan remains has been promoted mainly by scholars at Tokyo Imperial University and Kyoto Imperial University. They have been stolen from cemeteries in Ryukyu/ Okinawa, especially by anthropologists.
The rise of phrenology in the early nineteenth century, the eugenics philosophy that began to flourish even before the scientific establishment of evolutionary theory, Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’ in 1859, the founding of anthropological societies around that time, and the birth of evolutionary anthropology all contributed to the collection and study of human remains from ‘savages’ around the world. Anthropology as we know it today, trait natural anthropology and ethnology (cultural anthropology) were not functionally differentiated, nor were their mutual research exchanges borderless.Footnote31
In 1865, the theft of Ainu remains by an English scholar from a burial mound in Hakodate, Hokkaido, was a case in point.Footnote32 The Anthropological Society of Japan (Jinruigaku no Tomo) was founded in 1884 as an almost amateur study group, centralised by Shogoro Tsuboi of the Tokyo Imperial University as described above. Four years later, Yoshikiyo Koganei (1859–1944), the founder of natural anthropology in Japan, went on a trip to Hokkaido, which lasted around two months, to collect human remains, and took away at least 166 Ainu remains and some burial accessories.Footnote33 It is no coincidence that the first issue of American Anthropologist was published that year, and that the father of American cultural anthropology, Franz Boaz (1858–1942), finally took up a regular position and was also professionally involved in collecting human remains and exhibiting ‘living peoples’.Footnote34 ‘Anthropology’ was a discipline that was a borderless mixture of today’s natural anthropology, anatomy, biology, natural history, human geography, folklore, and ethnology (cultural anthropology). Skull research gradually became scientific as quantitative studies were refined, but the pioneer of this research style was Kenji Kiyono (1885–1955), a professor at Kyoto Imperial University, who conducted scientific research based on his vast private collections. Kiyono was the actual mentor of Soetsu Miyake (1905–1944) and Takeo Kanaseki (1897–1983), who later went on to collect human remains intensively from Ryukyu and Amami-Oshima Islands. In addition to Kiyono’s guidance, Kanaseki conducted a survey of Ryukyuan human remains with the support of Ryuzo Torii (1870–1953) and Buntaro Adachi (1865–1945).Footnote35
4.1. Kyoto imperial university and the stealing of Ryukyuan human remains
From the 1920s to the 1930s, human remains from Japan and abroad were collected at Kyoto Imperial University, where research was conducted mainly by anthropologists. At the center of this effort were Adachi, the founder of the Department of Anatomy, and his successor, Kanaseki, and Kiyono, the founder of the Department of Pathology, and his successor, Miyake. Adachi and Kiyono respected each other, and Kanaseki and Miyake held monthly ‘Anthropological Discussion Meetings’ to exchange information and conduct joint research. The results of this research were compiled by Kiyono into the ten volumes of the ‘Kiyono Laboratory Anthropological Papers’. They called groups with common traits ‘racial groups’ and tried to clarify the trait lineages and roots of humans, incorporating statistics into their research methods. This provided the academic motivation for the mass collection of human remains from various regions.Footnote36
Before the war, Kanaseki and Miyake were engaged in collecting human remains of the Ryukyuans. Kanaseki conducted research on Ryukyu and received a research grant from the Imperial Academy from 5–24 January 1929, during which time he collected 70–80 Ryukyuan human remains. Miyake conducted the first research on Ryukyu and Amami Islands from 12–22 December 1933, and collected approximately 70 human remains. These two coherent collections of Ryukyuan remains were found in various locations on the main island of Okinawa, and in both cases, the remains were taken from the Mumujyana tombs without the consent of the local people, with the cooperation of Okinawa Prefecture, the prefectural police, local researchers representing the Japanese colonial authority.Footnote37
Kanaseki called his research ‘racial studies’ and believed that it could contribute to the biology of human populations and provide a basis for eugenics. His research included the late custom of ‘nose kissing’, which he regarded as a remnant of the kissing of Westerners, and ‘strong body odor’, which he considered inferior, particularly that of the Ainu people, who were of ‘Caucasian origin’, and he emphasised the superiority of the Japanese. With regard to the Ryukyu Islands, he attempted to explore the formation of the Japanese people by studying the Ryukyuans, earning his doctorate in the ‘Anthropological Study of the Ryukyuans’. There, he considered the ‘Japanese’ and ‘Ryukyuans’ as different ‘races’. Such research has been continued since the late Edo period, by foreign researchers hired from the United States and Europe. In 1936, after arriving at Taipei Imperial University (Taiwan National University) as a professor, Kanaseki donated 33 remains collected from the Mumujyana tombs, as well as 30 remains from other areas of Okinawa main island to the Taipei Imperial University. The university retained around 80 Ryukyuan remains, 63 of which originated from remains collected by Kanaseki. Thus, his racial studies were not completed only with his research; he also proposed his own political idea to the Governor-General of Taiwan. This suggests that Kanaseki regarded his own study as a discipline that would contribute to the governance of the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere.Footnote38
4.2. Lawsuit calling for the return of Ryukyuan remains
In April 2017, Ryukoku University professor Yasukatsu Matsushima made a request to the Kyoto University Museum for confirmation regarding the Ryukyuan ancestral remains collected mainly by Kanaseki and Miyake. This was a preliminary investigation for a report to be presented at a Peace Studies Association sectional meeting to be held at Hokkaido University. The Kyoto University Museum responded to this request by saying that it was necessary to apply for a visit through a Kyoto University faculty member, so Matsushima sent an e-mail to Takeshi Komagome, a professor at Kyoto University, with a request titled ‘Request Regarding the Issue of Ryukyuan Ancestral Remains’. After eight e-mail exchanges among the three parties, the museum sent an e-mail titled ‘Response to Application’ to both Matsushima and Komagome on 16 May, stating that ‘the use of the specimens in question is not permitted’.Footnote39
In response, Matsushima asked the late Kantoku Teruya, a member of the House of Representatives and later a plaintiff in the lawsuit, to invoke his right to investigate national politics, and sent a letter of inquiry to Prime Minister Abe on 25 August 2017, and two open questions to Kyoto University President Juichi Yamagiwa on 9 March and 2 April.Footnote40 On 15 September 2017 the university acknowledged the retention of the 26 bodies at the Kyoto University Museum, but did not answer or respond to the questions sincerely, which led to a lawsuit on 4 December 2018 by Yasukatsu Matsushima (leader of the plaintiffs), Kantoku Teruya (deceased), Minoru Kaneshiro, three Ryukyuan Indigenous people, and Masako Kameya and Takeshi Tamagushiku, descendants of the people whose ancestral remains had been taken.
On 22 July 2019, Kenichi Shinoda, the president of the Japan Anthropological Society sent a letter to Kyoto University President, Yamagiwa, presenting principles for the handling of the Ryukyuan human remains as ‘cultural assets’ shared by the nation with academic value. On 26 August 2019, in the Kyoto University Staff Union News (No. 2), Yamagiwa remarked to Matsushima, ‘I am aware that he is a problematic person’.
As for National Taiwan University, 63 Ryukyuan remains were transferred to the Okinawa Prefectural Board of Education on 18 March 2019 and are being stored at the Okinawa Prefectural Center for Archaeological and Cultural Properties under its jurisdiction. However, the Okinawa Prefectural Board of Education did not grant the request by the families to return and reinter the ancestral remains, and a measurement survey of the remains was conducted in March 2020. As for National Taiwan University, in the ‘Okinawa Human Remains Transfer Agreement’ (November 2018) concluded with the Okinawa Prefectural Board of Education and the Nakijin Village Board of Education, the return and reinterment requested by the descendants was denied, and the research by the university’s researchers was approved. The National Taiwan University, on the other hand, has allowed the return and reburial of 64 remains of Bunun, Indigenous peoples from Taiwan, to Ma Yuan Village in Hualien County.Footnote41
In some cases, it has been pointed out that the Okinawa Prefectural Board of Education and the Nakijin Village Board of Education, as well as Japanese universities, have taken positions and actions regarding these remains that do not necessarily respect the wishes of the descendant families regarding the stolen ancestral remains, the beliefs of the Ryukyu/ Okinawan people, or the funeral system. Matsushima also states that these institutions illegally take possession of remains without any legal basis or rights and decide how to handle them while ignoring the wishes of the descendants.Footnote42
Matsushima considers the theft of Ryukyuan ancestral remains and their storage at Kyoto University and other institutions a problem under international law, and he has stated that the movement should return these remains as an exercise of the Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination and a movement for decolonisation. Against the background of the international movement for the return of Indigenous ancestral remains and the movement of the people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa as Indigenous peoples, the project also refers to Article 12 of the UNDRIP, which stipulates the right of Indigenous peoples to have their remains and burial accessories returned, as one basis for its activities, and is raising international issues through statements and reports to the UN human rights organisations as well as domestic activities.Footnote43
In the trial in the Kyoto District Court against Kyoto University, the plaintiffs claimed that (1) the tombs were stolen without the permission of the relatives who were in charge of the tombs, and (2) since the relatives had a customary right of succession to the tombs, the plaintiffs had the ‘right to succeed to the ritual’ in accordance with the Civil Code which stipulates that ‘the ownership of a tomb shall be succeeded according to custom’ (3). The plaintiffs claimed that the right to freedom of religion and the right to ethnic and religious self-determination guaranteed by the Constitution had been violated because the remains themselves were not where they should have been, although they were the object of worship because the spirits of the ancestors dwelled in the bones. Footnote44
In response, the defendant, Kyoto University, who never appeared at any of the 11 trial arguments or at the conclusion of the trial, countered that the collection was not illegal pilfering because it had been authorised by Okinawa Prefecture, that the relationship between the remains and the plaintiffs was not clear, that the custom over the graves did not identify the ritual successor, and that ‘the plaintiffs have no claim to return the remains’.Footnote45 The court accepted the opinion of Kyoto University and rejected the plaintiffs’ demand.
Although the plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed at the conclusion of the trial, there are some points of the dismissal that can be evaluated. First, the court held that the descendants of the nobles and their families of the Hokusan Period and the First Sho dynasty Period enshrined in the hundred Ancestors Tomb would preside over the ritual of the remains, and thus, Masako Kameya and Atsushi Tamagushiku, whom the Kyoto District Court found to be descendants, would be the ritual presiders over the remains.Footnote46 Second, although the court did not fully recognise the plaintiffs’ position as Indigenous peoples at the conclusion of the trial, the term ‘Ryukyu minzoku’ (Ryukyu peoples) was codified in the conclusion paper. It suggests that it was recognised that ‘there is room for interpreting the desire of the Ryukyu minzoku (Ryukyu peoples) to enshrine the remains of their ancestors in the Mumujana tombs as a religious personal interest that deserves legal protection’. This led to the third point, which was that the all plaintiffs, Kameya and Tamagushiku (descendants) as well as Matsushima and Kinjyo (referred to by the court as the ‘Tsuibosha: adherents’) would be the presiding officers over the rituals for the remains based on the judgment that the claimants belonged to the same Indigenous and minority communities.Footnote47
4.3. Movement of the repatriation of Ryukyuan remains
Besides the previous evaluation points, the lawsuit was supported by researchers, civil society inside and outside Okinawa Prefecture, the Ainu people and the Buraku min, and solidarity actions with Uchinanchu (person with a Ryukyu/ Okinawa background) and Indigenous peoples residing across the world. For example, the researchers who prepared the expert opinions for the pleadings and reported at some workshops and symposiums regarding the lawsuit calling for the return of the Ryukyuan ancestral remains are scholars in History, Political Science, International Relations, International Law, Ethnology and Cultural Anthropology and Biological Anthropology, including Tsuneo Namihira and Shinichi Isa from Ryukyu University, Ryuta Itagaki and Ichiro Tomiyama from Doshisha University, Takeshi Komagome from Kyoto University, Hideaki Uemura from Keisen Jogakuin Univesity, Mizuho Ikeda from Osaka University, Yoshinobu Ota and Noriko Seguchi from Kyushu University, and Tsunehisa Okuno, Etsuro Totsuka and the author of this paper from Ryukoku University. Besides these academics, there are Kyoto University students who supported the court trials and the related workshops through technical support to disseminate the result of each trial to the public through YouTube and SNS as an assistant of Matsushima. Between October 2020 and December 2022, a total of 31 videos were uploaded with a total time of 56 h 4 min 42 s.Footnote48
The National Liaison Group for the Ryukyu Ancestral Remains Repatriation Lawsuit was established on 24th May 2019 and Sayoko Yamauchi, who is the head of the executive office of this liaison group, has actively integrated the different named groups established in different prefectures, such as Nara, Osaka, Tokyo, and Shiga, to support the lawsuit, into a liaison group. Subsequently, the support groups expanded the movement to the national level. In addition, the Niraikanai nu kai was established on 23rd November 2019, and together with the association to support the lawsuit for the return of the Ryukyuan ancestral remains, they have requested that the Okinawa prefectural board of education disclose information from 16 August and they filed an audit request on 26 July 2021, asking for the reinterment of 63 remains that were transferred to the Okinawa prefectural board of education from Taiwan University. In response to the board of education’s ambiguous response to this request, NiraiKanai nu kai and Atsushi Tamagushiku took the lead in filing an audit request lawsuit on 25 January 2022.Footnote49
In parallel with these civil society movements in solidarity with other minority groups, have also developed. For example, Ainu representatives such as Ryoko Tahara, who is the executive committee of spute over the recognition of indigenous peoples in the lawsuit calling for the return of the Ryukyuan remains Voice of the Indigenous Ainu People Realised! and the deputy secretary general of the Sapporo Ainu Association, Fumio Kimura, from the executive committee of the Society for the Study of Ainu Ancestral Remains of the Japan Anthropological Society and the vice president of Biratori Ainu Association and Jirota Mokottunas Kitahara, who is an associate professor of Hokkaido University, have supported the Ryukyuan Repatriation trials since the December, 2019. As an organisation that supports Ainu repatriation of remains and land rights, Masashi Dehara, a non-Indigenous person and co-chair of the Ainu Ramat Executive Committee, also supported the court case for the repatriation of Ryukyuan remains.
In the Yanagihara bank founded at Buraku community at the center of Kyoto city, special exhibition, ‘Stolen Bones, Deprived Human Rights: Ainu People, Ryukyu People, and Buraku’Footnote50 was held during March 2019. The special symposium ‘Stolen Bones, Deprived Human Rights: Ainu People, Ryukyu People’ was held on 16 March.Footnote51
Furthermore, international solidarity event has been conducted through the people identified as Uchinanchu in Hawaii, Ireland, and the United States of America. For example, on 29 October 2022, the Dialogue Symposium on the issue of the theft of Ryukyuan human remains – The remains of our ancestors are not ‘research material’ (Watta-Uya-fuji) nu Ikotsu ya ‘Kenkyu zairyo’ ya aran! Repatriation Movement of Ryukyuan Indigenous peoples and Indigenous peoples of the world was held. The presenters at this symposium were Eric Wada (Hawaii resident, Okansen song and dance troupe), Teiko Yonaha Tursi (the United States resident, Okinawa Times overseas correspondent), Eriko Uehara Hopkinson (Ireland resident; Okinawa Liberty Project), and Noriko Oyama (the United States resident; Okinawa Peace Appeal).Footnote52
In this way, the lawsuit calling for the return of the Ryukyuan ancestral remains is being developed based on the network of Ryukyuan and Okinawan people scattered inside and outside Okinawa Prefecture, and through solidarity with the Ainu and Buraku people, as well as Uchinanchu and Indigenous peoples around the world. The movement is being conducted through the live broadcast of the court proceedings via live zoom conference, recorded in its entirety and released on YouTube on the same day, and disseminated through social networking services such as YouTube, Facebook and X (twitter). However, opinions on the definition of Indigenous peoples are divided even within Okinawa prefecture. I will discuss the current situation in the last section.
5. Discussion
The first trial in the Kyoto District Court in the Ryukyu remains restitution lawsuit was dismissed. However, as mentioned above, two of the plaintiffs were approved as the successors to the remains rituals. This is stipulated in Article 897, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code as follows:
Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Article, the ownership of genealogical records, ritual implements, and tombs shall be succeeded by those who should preside over the ancestral rituals in accordance with custom. However, if there is a person who should preside over the ancestral rites in accordance with the designation of the decedent, such person shall succeed.Footnote53
Furthermore, this lawsuit is a trial that has sharply questioned the prewar colonial domination of the Japanese state and society over Ryukyu and Okinawa, the colonialism that continued after the war, and the ‘colonialism of academic knowledge’ in the name of university research and scholarship. In other words, it is an inquiry into the Japanese nation and society to clear up the past. With regard to the colonialism of academic knowledge, Matsushima, the leader of the plaintiffs’ group, explained several cases. Among others, he criticised the colonialist situation by contrasting the previously mentioned ‘Academic Anthropology Museum Case’ of 1903 and the ‘Lawsuit for the Return of Ryukyuan Ancestral Remains’, which has been ongoing since 2018. In the Academic Anthropology Museum, ‘living human beings’ were treated as ‘specimens’ and Ryukyuan ancestral remains as ‘human skeletal material’ for academic knowledge that would contribute to humanity as a whole. The lawsuit against Kyoto University for the return of Ryukyuan ancestral remains accused Kyoto University of taking the stance that this colonialist antagonism still persists. Matsushima asks whether such academic knowledge should be prioritised while sacrificing the human rights of the people of Ryukyuan/ Okinawa. With these and other points in mind, the Ryukyuan ancestral remains restitution lawsuit has moved from the Kyoto District Court to the Osaka High Court, and as of 2023, the second trial is still in progress.
The movement for the repatriation of the Ryukyuan ancestral remains might be social movement that continues to expand based on social capital that consists of networks and trust based on norms as ‘Indigenous peoples’ and ‘Self-determination’.Footnote54 However, this movement is still not a movement of its own for many people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa. This is because the Japanese mindset, fostered by years of colonisation, makes them hesitant to accept the concept of Indigenous peoples.Footnote55
While there have been efforts from the perspective of Indigenous peoples and their resonance in recent years, as described above, there have also been negative comments and actions by the people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa. This is due to the fact that the Ryukyu/ Okinawan people have long lived in the position of being Japanese citizens and residents of Okinawa Prefecture, or have internalised the values of Japanese society through historical domination and assimilation, making it difficult for them to identify themselves as a unique ethnic group.Footnote56 There are also concerns that raising the issue as an ethnic issue may cause various ‘rifts’ and lead to the stagnation of the movement against the United States base. For example, when Governor Onaga made a statement to the UN Human Rights Council, Kosuke Gushi, secretary-general of the LDP Okinawa Prefectural Federation, and others requested that the United States base issue be considered a domestic political issue and stated that they should not be ‘accused of discrimination against the Indigenous peoples’.Footnote57 The best example of such opposition is the ‘Opinion Calling for a Change in the Recognition of the UN Committees that the Okinawans are Indigenous Peoples of Japan and for the Withdrawal of the Recommendation’ adopted by the Tomigusuku City Council of Okinawa Prefecture in December 2015. Here, it was pointed out that most Okinawans do not ‘self-identify as Indigenous peoples’ and that the recommendations are being made without the knowledge of the people of Okinawa, and that the assertion of Indigenous rights conversely invites reverse discrimination. Other local governments have adopted similar opinion letters, and on March 4, 2016, the ‘Okinawa Citizens’ Association for the Repeal of the UN Indigenous Peoples Recommendation’ was also established.Footnote58
However, AIPR representative Gosamaru Miyazato summarised that such opposition has the axis that Okinawans are Japanese and that unrelated NGOs are making claims on their own without the knowledge of the Okinawans, and pointed out that the grounds of the opposition are not valid considering the AIPR’s movement. The subject of the Indigenous peoples’ movement promoted by the AIPR and others is not the people of Okinawa, but the ‘Ryukyuan people’, who themselves have made claims to their rights and shared information about their activities.Footnote59 The ‘Society for the Comprehensive Study of the Independence of the Ryukyu Peoples’ also adopted a statement in opposition to the opinion of the Tomigusuku City Council in April 2016, arguing that the recommendations of the UN human rights treaty bodies are ‘a result of the decolonization movement’ and that by claiming rights as Indigenous peoples, they can ‘have their collective rights guaranteed by international law and gain international support’.Footnote60 In addition, in November 2020, the ‘Okinawa International Human Rights Law Study Group’, while noting that the opinion adopted by the Ginowan City Council ‘lacks an understanding of human rights and the international human rights guarantee system’, argued that the international human rights concept of Indigenous Peoples is not based on biological or medical identity, but rather on ‘a concept of the establishment of a modern state’. It refers to
people who have been forcibly incorporated and assimilated into the establishment of modern nations, who have been deprived of their previous ways of life, lands, and rights, and who are proud people who have collectively fought for the restoration of their rights and have built their rights.Footnote61
6. Conclusion
Although the Japanese government does not recognise the people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa as Indigenous peoples, they are internationally recognised by some UN international human rights bodies, and the efforts from the perspective of Indigenous peoples resonate with the recent movement for the right to self-determination over the United States Army base, such as the Henoko base relocation, as well as providing one of the foundations for the movement and the lawsuit calling for the return of the Ryukuan ancestral remains. However, the historical background of assimilation has also pointed out the difficulty of maintaining a sense of being a unique ethnic group, and not only the opposition to the viewpoint of the Indigenous peoples; it states that non-monolithic reactions, differences in positions, and diversity in discourse have arisen among individuals and groups from various perspectives. In this regard, the importance of building a common understanding and mutual understanding of the meaning and scope of the various positions and discourses in the context of Indigenous peoples and the people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa, and of engaging in dialogue to realise their rights, has been recognised and is being pursued. What this dialogue means is a dialogue with the history of Japanese and the United States colonialism experienced by the people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa, which is an integral part of the background of this dialogue. It also raises questions not only among the people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa, but also for the Japanese state, society, and its people, who are the perpetrators of such domination and oppression.
Masao Niwa, the head of the defense team for the lawsuit calling for the return of the Ryukyuan ancestral remains described the lawsuit as follows:
… It is also a struggle to establish the dignity of the living and the dead on a spiritual basis, exercising the right to self-determination in the context of the development of international human rights and humanitarian law and the world historical trend of decolonization and liberation from historical and structural racial discrimination. It is also … the historical and present task of each and every one of us in the Japanese nation and society, and in the majority Yamato (Japanese), and our responsibility to the past, present, and future.Footnote63
Acknowledgement
The author wishes to thank anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Yugo Tomonaga
Yugo Tomonaga received his Ph.D. from the Department of Area Studies, The Graduate University for Advanced Studies. He is currently an Associate Professor at the Faculty of International Studies, Ryukoku University, Japan, having worked as a Visiting Fellow at the National Museum of Ethnology and a Research Fellow of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. He has been a Visiting Researcher at the Center for Ainu and Indigenous Studies, Hokkaido University since 2020 and at the Faculty of East Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, University of Cambridge from September 2022 to March 2023. His areas of specialisation are social and cultural anthropology, mainly Indigenous Australian Studies and MinoiHrity Studies in Australia and Japan.
Notes
1 Kyoto District Court dismisses lawsuit calling for return of remains to Okinawa April 21, 2022 Ryukyu Shimpo (English translation by T&CT and Ellen Huntley).
2 N. Nakamura, ‘Redressing Injustice of the Past: The Repatriation of Ainu Human Remains’, Japan Forum 31, no. 3 (2019): 358–77.
3 Y. Osakada, ‘An Examination of Arguments over the Ainu Policy Promotion Act of Japan Based on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’, The International Journal of Human Rights 25, no. 6 (2021): 1053–69; T. Hirata, R. Ogawa, Y. Shimizu, T. Kuzuno, and G. Gayman, ‘Paradoxes and Prospects of Repatriation to the Ainu: Historical Background, Contemporary Struggles, and Visions for the Future’, in The Routledge Companion to Indigenous Repatriation: Return, Reconcile, Renew, eds. C. Fforde, C. T. McKeown, and H. Keeler, 238–358 (Routledge, 2020).
4 N. Nakamura, 2019. Y. Tomonaga, ‘The Repatriation of Ancestral Remains and Secret/Sacred Objects to Indigenous Peoples in Australia’, The Journal of Australian Studies 34 (2021): 39–53.
5 M. Tonaki, 2012. ‘Ryukyu Senjuminzoku Ron’ [Ryukyuan Indigenous Theory], in Siminshakai to Kyosei Higashi Ajia ni Ikiru [Civil Society and Coexistence: Living in East Asia], ed. J. Furukawa, 101–119 (Nihon Keizai Hyouronsha Ltd., 2012).
6 CCPR/C/JPN/CO/5 https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G09/401/08/PDF/G0940108.pdf?OpenElement (accessed December 29, 2022), CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9 https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G14/174/36/PDF/G1417436.pdf?OpenElement (accessed December 29, 2022), CERD/C/JPN/CO/10-11 https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G18/287/65/PDF/G1828765.pdf?OpenElement (accessed December 29, 2022).
7 H. Abe, ‘Jinken no Kokusaitekihosho ga Kaeru Okinawa’ [International Guarantees of Human Rights will Change Okinawa], in Okinawa ga Tou Nihon no Anzenhosho [Okinawa’s Question of Japan’s Security Policy], eds. J. Shimabukuro and H. Abe, 257–86 (Iwanami shoten, 2015).
8 UN Doc. CCPR/C/JPN/CO/6.19 August 2014, para 26.
9 Abe, ‘Jinken no Kokusaitekihosho ga Kaeru Okinawa’, 265.
10 UN Doc. CERD/C/304/Add.114, 27 April 2001, para 165.
11 UN Doc. CERD/C/JPN/3-6, 6 April 2010, para. 21.
12 UN Doc E/CN.4/2006/16/add.2.24 January2006, paras. 6, 51-53.
13 UNESCO (2009): Interactive atlas of the world’s languages in danger.
14 UN Doc. CCPR/C/JPN/CO/5, 18 December 2008, para 32.
15 UN Doc. CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9, 25 Sptember 2014, para. 21.
16 UN Doc. CERD/C/JPN/CO/10-11, 26 September 2018, paras. 17–18.
17 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169).
18 Y. Matsushima, Ryukyu Ubawareta hone: Ikotsu ni komerareta syokuminchisyugi [Ryukyu Stolen Bones: Colonialism in Human Remains] (Iwanami Publishing, 2018) [Japanese].
19 Y. Matsushima, Teikoku no Shima- Ryuky Senkaku nitaisuru Syokuminchisyugi to Tatakau [Islands of Empire: Fighting Colonialism in the Ryukyu and Senkaku Islands] (Akashi Publisher, 2020).
20 Ibid.
21 Matsushima, Ryukyu Ubawareta hone.
22 Ibid.
23 S. Sakihama, Ifa Fuyu no Seiji to Tetsugaku: Nichi Ryu Dosoron Saidoku [The Politics and Philosophy of Ifa Fuyuyu: A Rereading of the Nichiryu doso Theory] (Hosei University Press, 2022).
24 N. Jyahana, and S. Isa, eds. Jyahana Noboru Syu [Jyahana Noboru Collection] (Misuzu Shobo, Ltd., 1998).
25 Matsushima, Teikoku no Shima- Ryuky; T. Nakamatsu, Ryūkyū gogaku [Ryukyu Language Studies] (Naha: Okinawa Gengo Bunka Kenkyūjo, 1996).
26 Abe, ‘Jinken no Kokusaitekihosho ga Kaeru Okinawa’, 265.
27 Y. Kawano, ‘HeiwajyoyakuIgo no Okinawa to Nichibeigaiko’ [Okinawa and U.S.-Japan Diplomacy after the Peace Treaty], Diplomatic Archives Bulletin no 29 (2016): 41–60.
28 Y. Kawano, ‘Okinawamondai no Kigen o Megute: Kadai to Tenbou’ [The Agenda and the Prospect on the Origins of the Okinawa Problem], Kokusai Seiji [International Politics] no. 140 (2005): 136–145.
29 H. Imanishi, ‘1950 nendai Okinawa no “Shimagurumi Toso” - Nishizato Yoshiyuki to Sonojidai (1)’ [‘The Shimagurumi Toso,’or the Island-Wide Struggie in 1950’s Okinawa; Nishizto. Kikou and His Era(1)]. Departmental Bulletin Paper Commercial Research 70, (2/3) (2019): 33–64.
30 Abe, ‘Jinken no Kokusaitekihosho ga Kaeru Okinawa’, 266; S. Davis, Islands and Oceans: Reimagining Sovereignty and Social Change (University of Georgia Press, 2020).
31 T. Sakano, Tekoku Nihon to Jinruigakusya [Imperial Japan and Anthropologists] (Keisoshobo, 2005).
32 T. Ueki, Shinban Gakumon no Boryoku [New Edition Violence in Academia] (syunposya, 2017).
33 H. Kato, ‘Transported Ainu Human Remains to Australia and Dr Yoshikiyo Koganei’, Journal of Ainu and Indigenous Studies; Aynu Teetawanoankur Kanpinuye, 2 (2021): 31–56 [Japanese]; Y. Koganei, Koganei Yoshikio Nikki Meji hen 1883—1899 [Koganei Yoshikio’s Diary Meiji Era 1883–1899] (Cres Publishing, 2015) [Japanese]; Y. Koganei, Koganei Yoshikio Nikki Meji hen 1900—1912 [Koganei Yoshikio’s Diary Meiji Era 1900–1912] (Cres Publishing, 2015).
34 Herbert S. Lewis, ‘The Passion of Franz Boas’, American Anthropologist, 103, no. 2 (2001): 447–67.
35 R. Itagaki, ‘Jinruigaku Kyoto Gakuha to Taiwan: Kyoto Teidai Kaibougaku Dainikouza no Jinkotsu Kenkyu no Keifu’ [The Kyoto School of Anthropology and Taiwan: Genealogy of Osteology in the Kyoto Imperial University]’, Twentieth Century Studies, 21 (2020): 79–107.
36 According to Under the current Criminal Code 189–191, those who ‘excavate tombs’ or ‘take possession’ of human remains or other objects are subject to punishment. Since this Criminal Code was enacted in 1908, the collection of human remains in Kanseki and Miyake at that time would be illegal under this Criminal Code. R. ‘Itagaki, Kyoto Teidai no Jinruigakusya no Syokuminchisyugi teki Double Standard’ [Colonialist double standard of anthropologists at Kyoto Imperial University], in Kyodai yo Kaese: Ryukyujinn Ikotsu wa Utaeru [Kyoto University, Return: Ryukyuan Human Remains Sue], eds. Y. Matsushima, and S. Yamauchi, 90–97 (Kobunsha.2020).
37 Y. Matsushima and A. Kimura, Daigaku niyoru toukotsu: Kenkyu riyou saretuzukeru Ryukyujin Ainu ikotsu [Stolen Bones by Universities: Ryukyuan and Ainu Remains Continue to be Used for Research] (kobunsha, 2019).
38 Y. Matsushima, ‘Keshitsujinruigaku to Syokuminchisyugi tono Rekishiteki Kankei to Konnichi teki Kadai- Kanaseki Takeo ‘Jinshugaku’ o Cyushin ni shite’ [The Historical Relationship between Anthropology of Traits and Colonialism and Today’s Challenges: With a focus on “Racial Studies” by Takeo Kanaseki], in Daigaku niyoru toukotsu: Kenkyu riyou saretuzukeru Ryukyujin Ainu ikotsu [Stolen Bones by Universities: Ryukyuan and Ainu Remains Continue to be Used for Research], eds. Y. Matsushima and A. Kimura,42–66 (kobunsha, 2019).
39 T. Komagome, ‘Kyoto daigaku no syokuminchi syugi o tou’ [Questioning Colonialism in Kyoto University], in Kyodai yo Kaese: Ryukyujinn Ikotsu wa Utaeru [Kyoto University, Return: Ryukyuan Human Remains Sue], eds. Y. Matsushima and S. Yamauchi, 100–110. (Kobunsha, 2020).
40 T. Kantoku, ‘Uyafaji (Senzo) no ikotsu o kaese’ [Return the Remains of our Ancestors], in Daigaku niyoru toukotsu: Kenkyu riyou saretuzukeru Ryukyujin Ainu ikotsu [Stolen Bones by Universities: Ryukyuan and Ainu Remains Continue to be Used for Research], eds. Y. Matsushima and A. Kimura, 260–280 (kobunsha, 2019).
41 J. Shi, ‘Taiwan daigaku ni your ryukyu minzoku ikotsu henkan no Tenmatsu’ [The Return of the Remains of the Ryukyuan People by Taiwan University], in Kyodai yo Kaese: Ryukyujinn Ikotsu wa Utaeru [Kyoto University, Return: Ryukyuan Human Remains Sue], eds. Y. Matsushima and S. Yamauchi, 184–189 (Kobunsha, 2020).
42 Y. Matsushima and S. Yamauchi, Kyodai yo Kaese: Ryukyujinn Ikotsu wa Utaeru [Kyoto University, Return: Ryukyuan Human Remains Sue]. (Kobunsha, 2020).
43 Matsushima, ‘Ryukyu Ubawareta hone’; The Association of Comprehensive Studies for Independence of the Lew Chewans [Handout on the day of the ACSILs UN Activities 2022 Report Meeting (2022.07.16)].
44 Lawyers for the Lawsuit for the Return of the Remains of the Ryukyuan People, ‘Kyoudai ha Ikotsu o motono bashyo ni kaeshinasai’ [Kyodai should Return the Remains to their Original Location], in Kyodai yo Kaese: Ryukyujinn Ikotsu wa Utaeru, 14–33 [Kyoto University, Return: Ryukyuan human remains sue], eds. Y. Matsushima and S. Yamauchi (Kobunsha, 2020).
45 Kyoto trial conclusion paper 2022 April 21 Refer from Court HP (H30(Wa)3979) [Japanese]; YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvO2TlOBwiQ&t=8933s (accessed January 1, 2023).
46 Kyoto trial conclusion paper 2022 April 21 Refer from Court HP (H30(Wa)3979).
47 Ibid.
48 YouTube https://www.youtube.com/@matusima345/videos (accessed January 1, 2023).
49 Matsushima and Yamauchi, Kyodai yo Kaese: Ryukyujinn Ikotsu wa Utaeru.
50 Buraku people, outcasts who share the racial and ethnic origins of the majority of Japanese, form Japan’s the largest minority group with number of communities amounted to 6,000 and that of Buraku people 3 million.
51 https://www.city.kyoto.lg.jp/bunshi/cmsfiles/contents/0000247/247656/kouhousiryou.pdf (accessed January 1, 2023).
52 YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60pwqkLV3MI&t=4597s (accessed January 1, 2023); R.M. Yokota, ‘The Okinawan (Uchinānchu) indigenous movement and its implications for intentional/international action’, Amerasia Journal, 41, no. 1 (2015): 55–73.
53 S. Lee, ‘Minpou Dai 897 Jou ni Tsuite’ [About Civil Code Article 897], in Ryukyujin no Goikotsu o Kaeshite Kudasai! Itsu Kyodai wa Syokuminchishugi o hansei surunodesuka [Please Return the Remains of the Ryukyuans! When will the Kyoto University Reflect on its Colonialism?], ed. S. Segawa, 18 (Ryukyuikotuhenkansosyou Zenkoku Renrakukai, 2021).
54 R.D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (Simon & Schuster Ltd., 2001); New edition.
55 M. Hammine, ‘Indigenous in Japan? The Reluctance of the Japanese State to Acknowledge Indigenous Peoples and their Need for Education’, Sámi Educational History in a Comparative International Perspective (2019): 225–45.
56 M. Tonaki, Ryukyu Senjuminzoku Ron [Ryukyuan Indigenous Theory], in Siminshakai to Kyosei Higashi Ajia ni Ikiru [Civil Society and Coexistence: Living in East Asia ], ed. J. Furukawa, 101–119 (Nihon Keizai Hyouronsha Ltd., 2012) [Japanese].
57 Chiji Kokuren Enzetsu ni Jimintou Kenren ga chumon Senjumin Sabetsu Iwanaide [LDP Prefectural Federation Orders Governor’s UN Speech: Not to Address ‘Indigenous Discrimination’], Ryukyu Shimpo (18/9/2015).
58 Tomigusuku City Council, Kokuren Kakuinkai no Okinawa Kenmin waNihon no Senjuminzoku toiu Ninshii o Aratame, Kankoku no Tekai o Motomeru Ikensho [Opinion Letter Urging the UN Committees to Change their Recognition that the People of Okinawa are Indigenous Peoples of Japan and to Withdraw their Recommendations] https://www.city.tomigusuku.lg.jp/sp/userfiles/files/ikennsyoann_dai10gou(2).pdf, 36 (accessed January 1, 2023), 2015; By the end of 2019, similar statements have been adopted by more than 30 local government associations across the country, including the Toyomijo City Council and the Ishigaki City Council.
59 G. Miyazato, Senjuminzoku Hihan ni Hanron [Reacting to Criticism of “Indigenous Peoples], Ryukyu Shimpo (22/9/2016).
60 The Association of Comprehensive Studies for Independence of the Lew Chewans, 2016. Kokuren kakuiinkai no Okinawakenmin wa Nihon no Senjumizoku toiu Ninshiki o Aratame, Kankoku no Tekai o Motomeru Ikensho (Ikensho an dai 10 gou) enno Kougi Yokyu [Protests and Demands for Opinion (Draft Opinion No. 10) Calling for a Revision of the UN Committees’ Recognition that the People of Okinawa are Indigenous Peoples of Japan and for the Withdrawal of the Recommendation.”], https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e10kOyf2PhGCda1BY4XCp3JTSu5XteIN/view (accessed January 1, 2023.
61 All Okinawa Council for Human Rights Position Statement https://okinawahumanrights.blogspot.com/ (accessed January 1, 2023).
62 Y. Matsushima, ‘Fuki 50 nen, Douka sarenai Ryukyu: Ukeika suru Nihon tono tairitsu to Kongo no Yukue’ [The Ryukyu Islands, not Assimilated after 50 years of ‘reversion’: Conflict with a Rightward Turning Japan and the Future of the Ryukyu Islands], Gendai no Riron, 32 (2022); H. Nishiyama, ‘Decolonial Encounter with Neo-Nationalism: The Politics of Indigeneity and Land Rights Struggles in Okinawa’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 48, no. 2 (2023): 290–303.; R.M. Yokota, ‘The Okinawan (Uchinānchu) Indigenous Movement and its Implications for Intentional/International Action’, Amerasia Journal, 41, no. 1 (2015): 55–73.
63 M. Niwa, ‘Ryukyuminzoku Ikotsu Henkan Seikyu Sosho de Towareta Honshitsuteki Jikou’ [Essential Matters Questioned in the Lawsuit Calling for the Return of the Ryukyuan Remains], in Ryukyujin no Goikotsu o Kaeshite Kudasai! Itsu Kyodai wa Syokuminchishugi o hansei surunodesuka [Please Return the Remains of the Ryukyuans! When will the Kyoto University Reflect on its Colonialism?], ed. S. Segawa, 13–14 (Ryukyuikotuhenkansosyou Zenkoku Renrakukai, 2021).