Problem identification within the Mombetsu community

Based on the 2009 study tour experiences, a search began for key strategies for implementing ESD in Mombetsu, and the role of educators. The study tour included visits to six local learning organisations, which were based on themes such as local history, environmental conservation and Ainu culture. From the study tour, two problems were identified with current local learning activities in relation to Hatakeyama’s indigenous rights claim. Firstly, the learning activities overlooked the Ainu people following modernisation (or colonisation). Secondly,

146

these tended to objectify the natural environment, by separating nature and humans, and seeing nature only as an entity to be protected or to be utilised. Underlying the two problems of local learning activities was the dominant modern, Western, and scientific educational views, which seek “scientific and technological solutions to the environmental problems without addressing the root social, political and economic causes” (Tilbury & Fien, 2002, p. 9). Such a view did not facilitate participants reflecting on current lifestyles in Hokkaido, or eliminate the fact that modernisation was achieved through colonisation of the Ainu land and people.

This modern, western, and scientific educational view created two types of gaps in Mombetsu, which could have obstructed Hatakeyama’s indigenous rights claim within the Mombetsu community. The first gap was between the Ainu and Wajin people, as well as within the Ainu people. Previously, the local Ainu and Wajin Japanese never had a chance to discuss or work together on local indigenous issues. In addition, the local Ainu people were not united in their rights claim. Few Ainu people like Hatakeyama were active. Some Ainu people did not wish to publicly identify themselves as Ainu people, especially, the older generations. They were afraid of recalling their experiences of discrimination and abuse. Furthermore, younger generations were not even aware of their Ainu blood because they were not told about it by their families.

Interest in the proposed industrial waste management plant development in Mombetsu complicated the situation. The local community and local Ainu community were divided into those in favour, and those against, the development plan. Through the study tour, it was observed that there was hesitation from local

147

Wajin and Ainu members in supporting Hatakeyama’s indigenous rights claim and AAH. They supported Hatakeyama’s claim in their minds, but they did not want to support him publicly because their organisations, such as the Fishermen’s Union, Farmers’ Union and Mombetsu City Council, had already made an agreement with the developer.

The second gap which could have obstructed Hatakeyama’s indigenous rights claim was the knowledge gap. Local learning activities understood local history and issues predominantly from the Wajin Japanese perspective. At the same time, the dominant Wajin Japanese influence dismissed Ainu knowledge and history. This occurred for two reasons.

Firstly, long lasting assimilation policies, particularly formal education, played a key role, as discussed in section 4.1. The situation remained unchanged until now, even after the 2008 official indigenous recognition. Ainu education is not compulsory and it really depends on the teachers’ interests and efforts (Shinada, 2010). Even though teachers are interested in it, it is still difficult to find space for it in an already busy curriculum, and to identify how to teach it effectively. As a teacher in Mombetsu describes, years three and four might be the only space for teachers to integrate Ainu study, however, students at that age are too young to comprehend sensitive colonisation issues and the indigenous rights recovery (MSN, 2010c). Needless to say, teachers outside Hokkaido find little relevance in teaching Ainu issues, which are not considered local issues.

Lack of teaching materials and guidelines also makes it difficult for Mombetsu teachers to conduct Ainu education. A statement about Ainu people in the primary and high school textbooks are “fragmented, inappropriate and limited” (Shinada,

148

2010, p. 68).38 Teachers also find that existing supplementary textbooks are also not enough.39

Secondly, the nature of the modern, Western knowledge dismissed the Ainu people’s knowledge, which was orally transmitted through tales, legends, experiences, and morals for everyday life from generation to generation (Ainu Museum, 2017). Lack of written records makes difficult for anyone to access Ainu knowledge. Assimilation policies of the past and present discouraged Ainu people from keeping their language40, or passing their culture on to future generations. Reflecting this, Hatakeyama recalled a critical memory from his childhood:

In Japan, if the Wajin were to find out that the Ainu were speaking in Ainu, they would have strictly punished them for it. So, my grandmother and her friends totally stopped speaking in Ainu whenever they saw me near. Because of such things, Ainu people cannot understand Ainu language after my generation.

日本では、和人にアイヌ語を使っていることがばれると罰せられた。アイヌ語を 使うことが、うちらのひこばあさん、その辺のばあさん連中があつまっていると ころにいくと、アイヌ語で話すのをやめた。こういうことがあったから、俺ぐら い か ら ア イ ヌ 語 は わ か ら な い 。(S. Hatakeyama, personal communication, December 22-24, 2015).

38

In April 2016, the Ministry of Education made a modification on the statement in the junior secondary school text book regarding the ex-Aboriginal policy on the Ainu people in 1899. The original draft stated, “the government enacted the ex-Aboriginal policy in 1899 and took the lands of Ainu, who mostly engaged in hunting and gathering and forced them to engage in agriculture.” The government changed this statement to “the government... gave the land to the Ainu people and tried to change their life into the Agriculture-based life”. This modification has been criticised by the media and the AAH, who see it as “distortion of the history” (Kadota, 2015).

39

The supplementary text books on the Ainu people, which were published with the aim of compliment with what was missing in the curriculum, was first published in the 1984 (Shinada, 2010, p. 68). The side readings for the Ainu education have been published by the four organisations, including Hokkaido Education Board, Sapporo City Education Board, Hokkaido Teachers’ Union and Foundation for the Research and Promotion of Ainu Culture.

40

149

Even if the Ainu people had some local knowledge, they also became unsure about it in relation to the evidence-based, modern, Western knowledge. This was assumed from Hatakeyama’s words, as he often said that there were no (written) records to prove the local historical sites in Mombetsu (S. Hatakeyama, personal communication, December 13, 2013). All these factors resulted in erasing the existence of the Ainu people, and their knowledge, when juxtaposed against the modern Wajin and their knowledge.