From the article of 'Petrel'
No.625 / April 13, 1997

Please send us your opinion and the impression about this article without reservation.

Meaningless conception-"aborigines"

Does it mean a protection of private property ?



As the Sapporo District Curt recognized that the Ainu people are "aborigines", the Ainus racialist are rejoicing with "Victory".

But what is "aborigines" ? And what is its "right" ? Is it distinguished clearly from notorious right of a private property ? Racialists are reactionary and after all they fall at the level of a protection of a private property. To be consistent, they must demand their rights over all Hokkaido, but they demand only the part of it. That is, indigenous right is obscure and popularly speaking, it is a right of private property.

Of course it might be robbed "unjustly" historically. But this concept of "injustice" is also historical.

By the concept of the priority to the land, aborigines was is Indians and America is subject to them. If we develop the concept extremely, consistently, white color nations must leave America and return to Europe.

From this point of view, the idea of the indigenous right is reactionary which will pull back the history to the past, and this idea is historically sentimentalism, and loses its ground.

If they say that someone lives there, he has a right of this land, it is clear that such an opinion is not of communists, but is of the system of private property of bourgeoisie.

In the case of the ancestors of workers, if they back to three generations, their ancestors would reach to the peasants, and the majority of their fathers' generations would turn over their property to the oldest brothers and leave their home. They left home ,and were not endowed the property because that they were the second sons or the third sons.

But can you imagine that the workers go to law insisting the "indigenous right" and hold a court against their brothers and nephews demanding their property?

By the way, is the trial of "aborigines" of the Ainus also one of essentially similar farcical like this ? Worse still, this trial itself is farcical, for the decision is authorized that the Ainus are the aborigines and their rights are recognized -what's their rights?

Is there any right except private property ? But this decision also said that considering the present situation, an annulment of a malfeasance is impossible for that reason a claim of a plaintiff - return of Ainu'sland -is rejected .

This is none other than a liberal fake and farce plaid between Ainu racialism and bourgeois judicial administration . If the right of the Ainus is right, it is natural that their land will be returned.

In a few words ,bourgeoisie flatters at the Ainus satisfying them "mentally " in a happy expression and takes real interests avariciously, that is, this is adroit manner of bourgeoisie.

Of course, it is natural that we consider maximally the cultural meaning of the Ainus , but this idea must be applied to another precious historical cultures and there is no ground to regard the Ainus's culture specially. If it exists, the following reason might be possible that the Ainus are the nearest to "the original Japanese" (Jomon people).

If the cultral inheritance of the Ainus has particular significance, it must be derived from its character and its value, and the recognition of the Ainus is another problem. If the Ainus want the "racial recognition", we don't make objections to it.

But at the present age, it has no importance and is about the same as recognizing our ancestor as a certain race -Genji' Heike etc.

The Japanese consist of many "races", it seems that the Japanese tied directly to us are formed at the epoch from Jomon era to Yayoi era. This process is formed probably through the half-blooded union, that is, various races came to Japan from Asiatic Continent through the Korean Peninsula and they were mixed with "original Japanese" (Jomon people).

If we admit this process, there might be so many people who would insist themselves certain "race" except the Ainus (though, we can't use the word "so many " because the mixture was so advanced).

For example, the opinion of "Independence of Okinawa" was not a simple fancy and there was a real ground "racially" to some extent.

At least, the Okina could insist themselves a race as well as the Ainus, and such assertion was not rare.

And by the time when the Imperial Court of Yamato was established, there had been many "races" except "race of Yamato" (extremely speaking, races were full in Japan). This fact is reflected in the references of ancient Japan (for example, the names of "dissimilar races" or "barbarous races" conquered by the Imperial Court are appeared in Kyushu and Hokuriku districts).

In short, the racialism of the Ainus is reactionary and it has no positive meaning to bring it at present. Is it a protection movement of petite-bourgeoisie of Ainu's private property ? Workers propose not a racial struggle, but a class struggle and emphasize that the latter is essential content of the modern world.

In Japan today, whatever it may be, racialism weakens and shades off a class-struggle and it has only the reactionary meaning of diverting worker's attention from class-struggle.

Not long ago, we have witnessed the unhappiness of Yugoslavia which has been destroyed as a race, where racialism provoked racialism and racial struggles burned fiercely in place of class-struggle. Struggle against racialism must be done resolutely and thoroughly.