Ainu right to education and Ainu practice of ‘education’: current situation and imminent issues in light of Indigenous education rights and theory

Abstract

Several years have passed since the adoption by the United Nations of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Yet, what changes have happened in the lives of Indigenous peoples for whom the Declaration was written? This paper employs a framework of Indigenous educational theory to focus on the case of the Ainu of Japan and examines what kind of changes could be happening vis‐à‐vis Ainu education but are not. I explain the current stalled state of deliberations regarding implementation of the UNDRIP, outline the current resource base for an Ainu‐run education system, and argue that it is the duty of the Japanese government to provide the infrastructure and expertise necessary to implement such an educational initiative, as well as to aid the Ainu in overcoming ‘internalized oppression’ which currently hampers many Ainu from embracing their Ainu identity and thereby vocally advocating their rights to an Indigenously driven Ainu education. I briefly touch upon the relevance of the Ainu situation to other Asian Indigenous peoples and contend that the Ainu case provides one useful watermark for comparison with other Indigenous peoples’ scenarios.

Keywords:

• education rights of Indigenous peoples
• Ainu
• Indigenous educational theory
• cultural and linguistic revitalization

Notes

1. Following the custom at the United Nations, I spell Indigenous with a capital I.

2. Here, I distinguish the latter two types from Indigenous education, in the sense that the object of education (the students) of the latter are non‐Indigenous. Other than this, it is not my intention to delve any further into theoretical differences.

3. Ethnic Japanese.

4. For example, contrary to some Indigenous groups in the Fourth World, many Asian Indigenous peoples possess no block land rights in the form of a reservation. Consequent dispersed inhabitance has certainly contributed in the case of Japan to mixed‐inhabitance with settlers from the mainstream society and accompanying assimilation, thus precluding group consciousness and further inhibiting critical awareness of advocacy strategies in a society already hampered by values of social harmony.