The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Volume 5 | Issue 12 | Article ID 2618 | Dec 01, 2007

1

Multicultural Education in Japan

Eika TAI

Multicultural Education in Japan

Eika Tai

Article Summary

Korean ethnic education in Japanese publicschools, which started in the 1960s, is a form ofmulticultural education that provides usefulideas for multiculturalist teachers dealing withchildren of newcomer foreigners. In Osaka,Japanese and Korean activists with differentpolitical agendas developed two distinctiveapproaches. Those interested in the homelandpolitics of the two Koreas tried to develop anethno-national identity among Korean children,while those involved in civil rights politics inJapan encouraged the development of politicalsubjectivity.

Introduction

Multiculturalism has spread worldwide asmanaging cultural and ethnic diversity hasbecome a key to political stability in manycountries. While “multiculturalism in its diversemodalities has indeed become the official policydesigned to solve racism and ethnic conflicts inthe North,”[1] it has also been adopted invarious ways in regions beyond the North, suchas Asia, Africa and South America.[2] Japan hasbeen part of this international wave ofmulticulturalism. The recent increase offoreigners in Japan (up to about two million)has contributed to spreading this idea in asociety that has been dominated by theideology of monoethnicity.

Educators concerned about children ofnewcomer foreigners have especially

appreciated the idea. In the mid-1980s,scholars of education began to pay attention tothe idea of multicultural education that wasgaining popularity in other parts of the world.In the early 1990s, as the number of childrenwho needed to learn Japanese as a secondlanguage noticeably increased, works onmulticultural education were introduced fromthe United States, Canada, and Australia. Bythe late 1990s, teachers and researchers hadattempted to apply these imported ideas toJapanese contexts. However, as NakajimaTomoko, a leading scholar of multiculturaleducation, points out, certain forms ofmulticultural education had been practicedlong before multicultural education arrivedfrom outside. One such form is Korean ethniceducation. As early as the 1960s, Koreanactivists and Japanese teachers started todevelop educational approaches tailored to theneeds of Korean children enrolled in Japanesepublic schools. Nakajima points out that thiseducational movement coincided with thedevelopment of ethnic studies and multiculturaleducation in the United States.[3]

Although the ethnic composition of residentforeigners has been diversified, the largestgroup of foreigners has remained Korean(598,687 in 2005). The majority of the Koreansare former colonial subjects and their offspring(447,805 in 2005). These resident Koreans havepersistently demonstrated their political andcultural presence in Japan despite theirdisenfranchised status and the state’sassimilationist policies, through engaging inpolitical activism and paying special attentionto ethnic education. Their persistent presencein Japan is important not simply for their ethniccontinuity. A constant reminder that Japan was

APJ | JF 5 | 12 | 0

2

once a multiethnic empire, it points to the needfor a critical perspective in today’s multiethnicJapan. In light of the adoption by governmentand business organizations of a discourse ofmulticulturalism, it is imperative thatmulticulturalists learn from Koreans’ politicalstruggles in order to steer multiculturalismaway from the reproduction of the colonialhierarchy in today’s Japan, precisely thedirection toward which those in positions ofpower seem to be heading with theirinterpretation of tabunka kyosei (multiculturalco - l i v ing ) , a phrase used to de f inemulticulturalism in Japan.

In what follows, I present a historicalperspective on contemporary debates onmulticultural education in Japan by examiningits origins in Korean ethnic education.[4] Indoing so, I want to join Nakajima to show howtoday’s multiculturalists can learn not onlyfrom studies of multiculturalism imported fromoutside but also from within, i.e., from the pastexperience of Korean ethnic education in Japan.Such a move has already been made to someextent by educators familiar with Korean ethniceducation, as we will see. I also aim tocontribute to comparative theory building inthe field of multicultural education. Concernedabout “the extent to which debates aroundmulticultural/antiracist education have beenhermetical ly sealed within nat ionalboundaries,” Stephen May has called forbuilding a “cross-national perspective.”[5] Suchan effort is important in order to preventWestern experience with multiculturalism frombeing “falsely” universalized.[6]

Debates on Multicultural Education inJapan

Let me first discuss contemporary debates onmulticultural education in Japan, using acomparative perspective. In discussing “globalconstructions of multicultural education,” CarlGrant and Joy Lei identify three areas ofconcern: (1) the conceptualization and

realization of difference and diversity; (2) theinclusion and exclusion of social groups in adefinition of multicultural education; and (3)the effects of power on relations betweengroups.[7] In the first area, problems are foundin the politics of difference played out byminorities, which tend to give rise to culturalessentialism, and in the practice of thetolerance of difference expected frommajorities, which often ends with “boutiquemulticulturalism” characterized by superficialappreciation of ethnic cultures in such forms asfoods and festivals.[8]

Similar debates are present in multiculturaleducation in Japan. In their efforts to promoteunderstanding of cultural difference, teachersoften introduce food, fashion, and festivals fromthe homelands of newcomer children. This“three-F” approach is effective in raising selfesteem among newcomer children and culturalawareness among Japanese children, whenplanned carefully. Yet, education centering onnewcomers has been criticized for its tendencyto concentrate on the three Fs, and toenumerate different cultures as if they werefossilized displays in a static museum.[9] Insuch educational practice, the majorityJapanese, who are supposedly exercisingtolerance, are observers of diverse culturesperformed and displayed by foreigners.Moreover, there has been a critique of thesuperficial use of the catch phrase, “let’s turndifference into richness” (chigai o yutakasa ni),in multiculturalism programs, where newcomerchildren are often afraid of expressingd i f ference desp i te e f for t s made bymulticulturalists.[10]

The first area also concerns the dilemma ofaccommodating diversity within a nation state.In countries of immigration, such as the UnitesStates, Canada, and Australia, where the ideaof a common civic culture is central to nationalunity, there has been a debate on the balancebetween the need to maintain a commonculture and the need to recognize cultural

APJ | JF 5 | 12 | 0

3

pluralism. Multiculturalism is criticized as“inherently destabilizing and destructive of thecommon bounds of nationhood.”[11] Aware ofsuch a critique coming from conservative andliberal commentators, multiculturalisteducators stress the development of nationalidentification based on a civic culture whileappreciating different ethnic cultures.

In Japan, a country in which there has beenlittle immigration since the Pacific War and inwhich citizenship is based on the principle ofdescent, the idea of a unifying civic culture isalmost absent. The ethnic cultures ofnewcomer children are labeled as foreign,which deepens their separation from themajority students. Multiculturalist teachers inJapan emphasize, not national unity, but theidea of living together in harmony, kyosei,be tween Japanese and newcomers .Multicultural education may end up functioningto exclude newcomers as foreign and differentand thereby solidify, not destabilize, Japanesenational boundaries, while including thenewcomers at the margins of society. Asdiscussed below, the old practice of Koreanethnic education can offer a great deal totoday’s teachers on the idea of kyosei.

Net Migration in Japan, the United Statesand the European Community

In the second area, concerning the question ofwhich groups to treat as multicultural, there isa difference between countries of immigrationand those with descent-based citizenship. In

the former, people seen as multicultural arenationals or future nationals. As in Germany,which has descent-based citizenship with somerecent modification,[12] multiculturaleducation in Japan focuses on foreign children.While also addressing issues surrounding theAinu, and to some extent the Okinawans,“multicultural” tends to refer to the presence ofculturally diverse foreigners in Japan, asdemonstrated in multicultural educationpolicies, which mostly include the term“foreigners” in their titles.[13] Naturalizedchildren and Japanese children born ofinternational marriage are treated as rutsu noko (children with foreign roots), i.e., as foreignand different. While their difference is madevisible, their Japaneseness or the changingcontent of Japaneseness is not addressed.Multiculturalism has emerged as a critique ofthe ideology of monoethnicity, but the myth ofhomogeneity among people within nationalboundaries is not effectively debunked, leavingthe position of rutsu no ko suspended inrelation to Japanese nation and ethnicity.

The third area is relevant to progressivecritiques of multiculturalism. It has beenargued that multicultural education fails toaddress adequately structural inequalitiessurrounding minority students. Whenpreoccupied with superficial culturalism, ithelps reconstitute the preexisting socialh ierarchy in a po l i t i ca l economy o fdifference.[14] In countries with citizenshipbased on place of birth, this problem isaddressed through the idea of minority rights.Multicultural education involving foreignchildren needs to deal with issues of rightsdifferently; it needs to draw on internationalhuman r ights laws, as in the case ofmulticultural education in Germany.[15]Moreover, in countries with a history ofcolonization, there has been a debate overcontinuity between the colonial past andcontemporary representations of culturaldifference.[16]

APJ | JF 5 | 12 | 0

4

Preoccupied with helping newcomer childrenadapt to Japanese school environments, mostmulticulturalist educators in Japan slight issuesof political economy and citizenship. Whileappreciating the imported idea, they do notrealize that multicultural education in theUnited States, Canada, and Australia isprimarily for nationals. It is true that concernwith human rights is central to multiculturaleducation policies, as Okano Kaori pointsout.[17] But such concern is rarely extended tosocio-structural problems.[18] It has beenpointed out that Japanese teachers do not havethe same level of political consciousness towardnewcomers as toward resident Koreans, whoremind them of Japan’s responsibility for itscolonization. Yet, the presence of newcomerforeigners in Japan, which is tied to Japan’semerging neo-liberalism, is also continuouswith its past colonialism. Korean ethniceducation, which was directly connected toKoreans’ postcolonial struggles, can helppoliticize multicultural education in today’sJapan.

In sum, contemporary debates on multiculturaleducation in Japan have similarities to anddifferences from multicultural education inother parts of the world. An examination ofKorean ethnic education can help advancecertain debates.

Two Approaches to Korean EthnicEducation

Ethnic education for Korean children has beenprovided mostly in two different types ofschools: public schools under the control of theJapanese government and Korean ethnicschools operated by Korean organizations. Themajority of Korean children have been enrolledin the former. I want to examine the rise anddevelopment of Korean ethnic education inpublic schools in Osaka Prefecture, home to thelargest Korean population in Japan.

The ethnic education movement in Osaka

Prefecture is not monolithic. The movement hasbeen started, sustained, and expanded invarying social contexts by people with diversepolitical goals. Yet one can still recognize twomajor approaches in the movement, whichroughly correspond to two political orientationsin Korean ethnic activism: homeland politicscentered on Korea and led by Chongryun (theGeneral Association of Korean Residents inJapan) and Mindan (the Korean ResidentsUnion in Japan) supporting North Korea andSouth Korea respectively; and a civil rightsstruggle in the context of Japan led byMintoren (National Council for CombatingDiscrimination against Ethnic Peoples inJapan). The two approaches differ not only inthe content of education but also in theinterpretation of Koreans’ status in Japan,reflecting the political goals of those whodeveloped the approaches.

The first approach, advocated by homeland-oriented activists, revolves around themaintenance and revitalization of ethnicculture in relation to Korea, while the second,favored by civil-rights oriented activists,focuses on anti-discrimination education andthe development of political subjectivity.Activists and educators themselves comment onthis distinction, calling the former an ethnic-culture approach and the latter an anti-discrimination approach. To be sure, neitherthe divide between the political orientationsnor the line between the two approaches isabsolute in actual social practices; manyactivists are interested in both types of politicsand many teachers integrate the twoapproaches. Yet distinguishing the twoapproaches helps to clarify the nature andsignificance of the ethnic education movement.

In his ethnographic study of Korean ethnicclasses in Osaka’s public schools, Jeffry Hesterfinds that both Korean and Japanese teacherssee “an identification with a Korean heritage askey to a positive self-image.” He also notices adifference in emphasis between the two

APJ | JF 5 | 12 | 0

5

groups; the Koreans seek “to create, or at leastplant the seeds of , a Korean nationalsubjectivity,” while the Japanese stress “thegoal of eliminating the stigma heretoforeattached to the status of ‘Korean.’” [19] Thistendency may be observed if the teachers aregrouped nationally. However, the difference ismore a function of the political orientations ofthe teachers than o f the i r na t iona lbackgrounds. As shown below, some Japaneseteachers are concerned with the developmentof a Korean national subjectivity and someKoreans stress the goal of constructing apolitical subjectivity for fighting social stigma.

The Ethnic-culture Approach

The ethnic-culture approach was developedthrough an educational movement in andaround Osaka City. It was rooted in Koreans’struggle in the late 1940s to provide ethniceducation (minzoku kyoiku) for Koreanchildren. As soon as their homeland wasliberated in 1945, Koreans who remained inJapan began creating schools to revitalize theirculture suppressed under assimilationist policyand to raise national consciousness amongKorean children. Some 550 schools werecreated within a year, accommodating 44,000students. The League of Koreans, created in1945 to protect the interests of Koreans inJapan, played a central role.[20] However, theJapanese government demanded in January1948 that Korean schools comply with theSchool Education Law of 1947, which requiredthat the language of instruction be Japanese inaccredited schools. Korean would be taughtonly in extracurricular courses. The Koreansopposed this intervention and protested againstthe government’s move to close non-accreditedKorean schools. In April 1948, tens ofthousands of Koreans demonstrated throughoutJapan, and many were arrested during themonth-long turmoil. In Osaka, where 30,000demonstrated, a Korean boy died from policefire. In 1949, the Japanese government orderedthe dissolution of the League of Koreans and

closed most of the 337 schools operated by it,deploying armed force.[21]

Korean children were transferred from ethnicprivate schools to Japanese public schools.After the 1948 protests, Koreans in OsakaPrefecture persuaded the governor to sign amemorandum that guaranteed the opening ofethnic classes (minzoku gakkyu) in 32 publicschools and the hiring of 36 Korean ethnicinstructors (minzoku koshi) for ethnic classes.In addition, Nishiimasato Junior High School ofOsaka City, intended exclusively for Koreans,was opened in 1950. [22] After regainingindependence in 1952, however, the Japanesegovernment made the operation of ethnicclasses difficult. It took the stance that it wouldadmit Koreans, who were no longer Japanesenationals, in public schools only if theyaccepted the education prescribed for Japanesechildren by the Ministry of Education. Localschools followed the guideline of “treatingKorean children in the same way as Japanesechildren” and taught them to “live likeJapanese.”[23] School administrators andteachers routinely instructed Korean childrento use Japanese-style names and to pass asJapanese, using the possibility of discriminationas their reason. The ethnic educationmovement in Osaka City rose as a challenge tothis assimilationist practice.[24]

In the late 1950s, Chongryun began to openprivate schools that were partially funded byNorth Korea. By the early 1970s, it hadestablished 180 schools of from primary schoolthrough university with about 35,000 students,about a quarter of school-age Koreans.[25] Butrelatively high tuition and limited schoollocations made it difficult for the majority ofKorean parents to send their children to thoseschools. Political divisions within the Koreancommunity and the desire by some to assureJapanese education for their children led othersto choose the public schools. The 1965 SouthKorea–Japan Normalization Treaty guaranteedthe right of Koreans to receive education in the

APJ | JF 5 | 12 | 0

6

public school system.[26] By then, there hadbeen a decline of ethnic classes in Osaka, partlybecause of the 1961 transfer of NishiimasatoSchool, which supported those classes, into theChongryun-led school system with aneducational approach modeled on NorthKorean education.[27]

Korean activists and Japanese educators wholaunched the multicultural educationalmovement in Osaka City respected theassertion of the 1948 protests, namely,Koreans’ right to maintain the culture andidentity of their homeland. The activists tried tomaintain ethnic classes, which stressed thenational culture of the homeland, and usedthose classes as a model for the ethnic classesthey created. The city’s Korean community, thelargest in Osaka Prefecture, also stressed aculture orientation toward ethnic education.Koreans began to settle in Osaka in the 1920sand by the 1940s many operated independentbusinesses or were employed as skilledworkers.[28] In those districts with highconcentrations of Koreans, including Ikainowhere about a quarter of residents wereKoreans, Korean culture was played out ineveryday life. The city was also home to manyKorean political organizations, including themajor branches of Mindan and Chongryun,which fostered political debate about thedivided homeland among Koreans. Thesefactors contributed to the formation of theethnic-culture approach, which focused on theconcept of ethnic nation (minzoku) asunderstood in relation to the Korean homeland.However, it was ultimately the politicalorientation of people involved in the movementthat shaped Korean ethnic education.

Resident Korean children at Chongryunschool

The ethnic-culture approach was developedthrough collaborative efforts of Japaneseteachers and Korean activists. At early stages,the former took the initiative. Their educationalactivism was a response to the disinterest anddiscriminatory attitude of other Japaneseteachers. The Osaka City Teachers’ Unionbecame concerned about education for Koreanchildren in the late 1950s, holding, forexample, a workshop about these children’sethnicity in 1957.[29] At the Union’s 1959workshop, members recognized the needs ofKorean ethnic education. However, the basicstance of the Union was that Japanese teacherscould do nothing but encourage Koreanchildren to attend Korean schools.[30] In 1965,as it became clear that most Korean childrenwould remain in public schools, Osaka Cityestablished the Research Council for ForeignChildren’s Educational Problems. Under the

APJ | JF 5 | 12 | 0

7

leadership of the Council, some schools beganto look into interethnic conflicts. However, theCouncil came under severe criticism in 1971,when a public report based on input from theCouncil revealed its members’ discriminatoryattitude toward Koreans. The Council membersdescribed Korean students as selfish, slovenlyand defensive, and regarded their ethnicconsciousness as a source of schooldisorder.[31]

This incident brought about the creation of theClub for Thinking about Education for KoreanChildren Enrolled in Public Schools (ZOK), anactivist organization that has played animportant role in the educational movement tothis day.[32] ZOK was formed at a meeting inwhich about 1,000 people gathered to criticizethe incident. ZOK members, consisting ofschool teachers, educational administrators,and researchers from Osaka City andneighboring cities, held meetings andworkshops on education for Korean children, aswell as on pol it ical problems such asimmigration control and colonial history. Theyalso took political action, holding politicalgatherings and lobbying municipal offices toimprove the plight of Korean students. As avolunteer organization, ZOK worked closelywith the Osaka City’s Teachers’ Union.

The report of the first meeting of ZOK: ChildrenLiving with Two Names

While members of ZOK had diverse opinions,they shared a few basic ideas. First, theyascribed problems surrounding Koreanstudents to international politics, and heldJapanese people, including themselves,responsible for the problems. Seeing the use ofJapanese names prevalent among Koreanchildren as a legacy of colonial assimilationistpolicy, they believed that they, as Japanese,should not allow the practice to continue.[33]They were also concerned about Japan’spostwar politics with regard to the two Koreas.Having protested against the 1965 SouthKorea-Japan Normalization Treaty over thefailure to enter into treaty relations with NorthKorea, most ZOK members were aware of howinternational politics created problems forresident Koreans.[34] ZOK situated the issue ofKorean ethnic education in the context ofJapan–Korea political relations.

APJ | JF 5 | 12 | 0

8

Second, ZOK regarded Korean students asKorean nationals in the Diaspora. ZOKmembers were concerned about the question ofhow to educate foreign nationals in theJapanese national school system.[35] As a ZOKmember told me, other teachers treated Koreanstudents the same as Japanese students,neglecting their difference in nationality. ZOKmembers thought it their duty to create a spacein their schools where Japanese and Koreanstudents could meet on an equal footing asdifferent nationals. To this end, ZOK teachershelped Korean students to develop an ethno-national consciousness and taught Japanesestudents to support Koreans’ struggle. Theyalso engaged in “teaching Korea correctly,” anexpression they used as a political slogan, toeliminate the social stigma attached to Koreanethnicity. They regarded ethnically markedpersonal names as essential to nationalidentification, and encouraged Korean studentsto use their true names. Believing thateducators should take the initiative in treatingKoreans as Korean, some schools made it a ruleto call all Koreans by their true names.[36]

The third point is a corollary to the second;ZOK members wanted to distinguish educationfor Koreans from education for burakumin(former outcastes), who were Japanesenationals. Burakumin and Korean communitiesoften stood side by side in poverty-strickenneighborhoods in Osaka, as both weremarginalized economically and socially. Atschool, burakumin and Korean children hadsimilar problems, missing many classes, comingto school with empty stomachs, and expressingfrustration in delinquency. In trying to solveproblems surrounding Korean students, manyteachers drew on their experience with“liberation education” developed by burakuminactivists. They encouraged Koreans to disclosetheir ethnicity and liberate themselves basedon ethnic pride.[37] Yet, ZOK members did notequate Korean ethnic education with liberationeducation because they wanted to respect theidea of minzoku and did not want to reduce it

to a matter of ethnic discrimination.

The event at Nagahashi Elementary School,located in a burakumin district of NishinariWard, where 20 per cent of residents wereKorean, marked a breakthrough for ZOK. In1972, Korean parents demanded that theirchi ldren be enrol led in the school ’ssupplementary courses provided for burakuminchildren, accusing teachers of ignoring Koreanchildren who also needed such extra help. Afternegotiating with the City Board of Education,Korean parents and Japanese activist teachers,including ZOK members, succeeded inestablishing ethnic classes for Korean children,which were separate from supplementarycourses for burakumin.[38] Although OsakaCity soon withdrew promised assistance,extracurricular ethnic classes were maintainedthrough collaboration between volunteerKorean instructors and Japanese activistteachers.[39] This case triggered the openingof volunteer-based ethnic classes elsewhere inthe city and beyond. This was much needed inOsaka City, where in 1972, about 5 per cent ofthe children enrolled in grade schools wereKoreans, and the enrolment rate was more than20 per cent in a dozen schools, including onewith more than 50 per cent.[40]

The creation of ethnic classes at NagahashiElementary School was greatly affected byhomeland politics. The selection of Koreaninstructors was complicated by residentKoreans’ political divide. The presence of twoKorean schools in Nishinari Ward, onesupporting North Korea and the other SouthKorea, contributed to this complication. Thetwo Koreas’ communiqué of 4 July 1972, whichpointed toward their unification, eased thepolitical tension to some extent, but the dividepersisted. The Association for Scholarships forKoreans, which took a neutral position, wasentrusted with the selection process and choseinstructors from both North and Southsupporters. Still, Korean parents complainedwhen their children were sent to an ethnic

APJ | JF 5 | 12 | 0

9

class with a Korean instructor siding with thegovernment they opposed.[41] ZOK as a groupdecided to support the idea of Koreanunification and tried to reconcile the politicalconflict in order to have the smooth operationof ethnic classes.[42] Thus, the nature of ethnicclasses at Nagahashi Elementary School, whichwas to become the center of ethnic educationin Osaka City, was homeland oriented.

Korean pupils at Nagahashi played animportant role in the creation of ethnic classes.Having learned the importance of their mothertongue from Japanese teachers, they demandedthe hiring of native Korean speakers for ethnicclasses, chanting “We want our languageback!”[43] Liberation education prepared themto take such political action.

Park Chung-hae, a graduate of a Korean collegein Japan, became one of the first instructors atNagahashi. She was eager to teach the cultureof the homeland, such as Korean songs, games,folktales and language, and wanted her pupilsto respect the idea of the unification of the twoKoreas. As a child, she had experienced the1948 closure of Korean schools and Koreans’protests against this measure. She herself wasforced to transfer to a Japanese school, whereshe was made to use a Japanese name. Shedecided to become a teacher because of thisexperience. At Nagahashi, she found itnecessary to pay attention to the needs ofKorean children growing up in poverty andfacing discrimination. She taught them to copewith their predicament based on pride in theirhomeland and their newly learned culturalknowledge. She called her pupils by theirKorean names and tried to develop nationalconsciousness in those who had been culturallyassimilated. Having them interview theirgrandparents and showing them the locationsof their hometowns on a map of Korea, shestressed how they were connected to Koreansin the homeland culturally and genealogically.Ms. Park, who was to form and lead theassociation of Korean instructors, was

influential in shaping the content of ethniceducation in Osaka City.

Booklet celebrating the 25th anniversaryof the association of Korean instructors in

Nagahashi

With the creation of volunteer-based ethnicclasses, there emerged a division of labor incollaboration; Korean instructors focused onteaching ethnic classes and ZOK teachersfacilitated the smooth operation of ethnicclasses in public schools, where the formerreceived little respect.[44] ZOK membersappealed to other Japanese teachers to supportKorean instructors and requested schooladministrators to open more ethnic classes.Espousing democracy, ZOK teachers aimed toeliminate ethnic discrimination from the publicschool system.[45] Entrusted with the contentof ethnic classes, Korean instructors, many ofthem Korean school graduates, taught not only

APJ | JF 5 | 12 | 0

10

Korean language, music, dance and folktalesbut also the geography and history of thehomeland. Using Korean names for their pupils,they stressed the importance of understandingand expressing one’s ethnic heritage. They sawan ethnic class as a place for Korean childrenborn and raised in Japan to encounter anddevelop attachments to minzoku and raise selfesteem based on such attachments.[46]

While working with Japanese activists, Koreaninstructors began to take the initiative inorganizing political actions themselves.Starting in the late 1970s, they demanded thatOsaka Prefecture maintain memorandum-basedethnic classes, which had lost two thirds of theoriginal instructors due to retirements and thelack of support. In 1984, Koreans formedMinsokkyo (the Association for AdvancingEthnic Education). Its activism was aimed atsecuring financial support from localadministrations for the maintenance andexpansion of ethnic education. In line with theprinciples of the 1948 protests, Minsokkyocontended that Korean children had the rightto learn the ethnic culture of their homeland.Through signature-collecting campaigns andlobbying the Osaka Prefecture Board ofEducation, it succeeded in sustaining thememorandum-based ethnic classes that wouldotherwise have been closed. ZOK respectedMinsokkyo’s political initiatives. With thecreation of Minsokkyo, Japanese and Koreanactivists began a new round of collaborationsquarely on an equal footing, as a ZOK membertold me.

While including the association of Koreaninstructors in it, Minsokkyo kept a divisionbetween ethnic education itself and politicalactivism, leaving Korean instructors andchildren in ethnic classes to focus on learningculture. Like ZOK teachers, Minsokkyomembers did not want to reduce minzoku topolitics.In response to the educational activism led byMinsokkyo and ZOK, Osaka Prefecture

established “the Basic Guideline of Educationfor Resident Foreigners” in 1988, makingethnic education an issue for all schools in theprefecture. In 1991, when a bilateralagreement between South Korea and Japan wassigned, the Japanese Ministry of Educationinstructed prefectural boards of education tosee to the smooth operation of ethnic classes.This contributed to the creation of the 1992educational project for Koreans in Osaka City,which made volunteer-based ethnic classesofficial and provided financial resources. Ithelped to open more ethnic classes in the city,responding to renewed interest in ethnicclasses among Korean parents sparked by the1988 Seoul Olympics Games.

While the central government remainedindifferent to ethnic education, Japaneseteachers concerned about Korean studentsformed a nationwide network to promote ethniceducation in their respective localities. ZOKinitiated this networking by holding nationwidemeetings at the end of the 1970s.[47] Themeetings resulted in the formation ofZenchokyo (Nationwide Association for theStudy of Resident Korean Education) in 1983.ZOK was subsumed under this umbrellaassociation while keeping some independencefrom it . As Kishida Yumi suggests, incomparison to other Zenchokyo groups, ZOKpaid more attention to Japan’s responsibility forcolonial history and Korean children’s right toreceive ethnic education. The others wereprimarily concerned about the development ofhealthy personalities free from the effects ofethnic discrimination. For them, the startingpoint of ethnic education was not minzoku(ethnicity) but ethnic discrimination.[48]

The Anti-discrimination Approach

The anti-discrimination approach wasdeveloped in two different locations in OsakaPrefecture: Takatsuki City and Yao City, whereKorean populations were much smaller than inOsaka City. There, Japanese teachers also

APJ | JF 5 | 12 | 0

11

played an important role in educationalactivism, but they led their Korean students totake center stage. Appreciating the idea ofliberation education, the Japanese teachersaspired to teach Korean students to developpolitical subjectivity and take the initiative inl iberat ing themselves and changingdiscriminatory social institutions. Some Koreanteenagers then began community-basededucational activism, establishing their ownactivist groups, Mukuge Society in Takatsukiand Tokkabi Children’s Club in Yao. The twogroups collaborated closely in the 1980s,forming the Osaka branch of Mintoren, anumbrella organization of locally based civilrights groups. The groups kept distant fromMindan and Chongryun, which denounced thecivil rights movement as tantamount toassimilation. For Mukuge and Tokkabi activists,ethnic education was an integral part of theirpolit ical struggle to eliminate ethnicdiscrimination in society. The followingdiscussion focused on educational activism inTakatsuki City.

The anti-discrimination approach was originallyformed in the educational movement ofRokuchu (the Sixth Junior High School) inTakatsuki City. Public schools in this city, witha concentration of low-income residents, tookup the issues of human rights and anti-discrimination more seriously and earlier thanelsewhere.[49] Rokuchu was opened in 1963and many of its teachers were particularlyactive in addressing problems surroundingmarginalized students, including Koreanstudents. In the school district of Rokuchu,there was a small Korean enclave called Nariaiinhabited by several dozen Korean families.This Korean community formed in the 1940swhen forced laborers were brought fromcolonial Korea to the construction site ofTachiso, a secret military warehouse. Nariaiwas a small valley demarcated from Japaneseresidential areas in the surrounding hills, andits infrastructure remained poor long afterimprovements had been made elsewhere.

Korean workers in Nariai mostly eked out aliving as construction laborers.[50] TheRokuchu movement revolved around Koreanstudents from Nariai as well as marginalizedJapanese students.

At Rokuchu, many teachers enthusiasticallysought to implement liberation education and“to re-engineer classroom relations so thatchildren subject to discrimination would be atthe center of activities rather than beingbanished to the periphery.”[51] The teachersdealt with various forms of discrimination:discrimination against Koreans, burakumin, thepoor, people with disabilities and people withless-than-average intellectual competence.They cherished the idea of comradeship(nakama), which would unify people who werediscriminated against with those willing to jointhem in fighting against discrimination. Thegoal was not creation of a harmoniouscommunity; rather, they sought to createsomething like what Sonia Nieto calls a“learning community,” where “all voices arerespected” while struggle, conflict and realdifferences continue to exist.[52] YoshiokaHaruko, one of the teachers who led theRokuchu movement, told me that she pushedher students to confront one another andexpress their frustration, anger and criticism.She dealt with those feelings not as personalproblems, but as problems for the whole classand the whole school to tackle. Thus, she waspracticing “multicultural education in a socio-political context,” i.e., critical pedagogy forsocial justice important for all students.[53]

While facilitating the building of nakama, theteachers encouraged Korean students to “comeout,” declare their ethnicity, and fight againstdiscrimination, just as they did with burakuminstudents. Korean students at Rokuchu began toperform Chosenjin sengen (the declaration ofbeing Korean) in their homeroom classes asearly as 1964.[54] Among many events atRokuchu, the 1969 graduation ceremony wasparticularly important. Twelve graduating

APJ | JF 5 | 12 | 0

12

Korean students decided to use their Koreannames instead of the Japanese names they hadbeen using to pass as Japanese. Reported in anationwide magazine, their coming-out at thepublic ceremony had significant impact onyoung Koreans and Japanese educators.[55] AsMs. Yoshioka told me, the event was a form ofpolitical activism planned and led by students,who learned from their teachers how to takepolitical action.

Nariai Kodomo-kai Shinbun, 4 July 1969,featuring the graduation ceremony with a

photo of Yee Kyung-jae

The Rokuchu teachers, feeling responsible forJapan’s colonization of Korea, paid particularattention to Korean students. In 1967, theycreated the Nariai Children’s Club, whereKorean children could share their feelingsabout discrimination and learn about Koreanhistory, culture and language. This club can beconsidered to be the first ethnic class evercreated after the opening of memorandum-based classes, predating those at NagahashiElementary School. Children’s clubs wereopened in other schools after 1972, when

Takatsuki City, in response to educationalactivism, decided to hire two part-timeinstructors and made the status of children’sclubs official in the public school system.[56]The Japanese teachers tried to link children’sclubs to regular classes so that Japanesestudents would learn from Korean students’struggles.[57]

In Takatsuki City, neither the expressionminzoku gakkyu (ethnic class) nor minzokukoshi (ethnic instructors) was used; kodomo-kai(children’s club) and shidoin (mentor) wereused instead, drawing attention away from theconcept of minzoku and to the empowerment ofchildren. As Ms. Yoshioka recalled, theteachers did not even think of the wordminzoku until they heard about it from ajournalist who visited Rokuchu. This does notmean that their political consciousness wasnarrowly focused on education. They wereconcerned about social problems of the timesuch as the Vietnam War and environmentalpollution, and they taught their students tothink about the problems critically. Just likeZOK members , they wanted to takeresponsibility for colonial history. Yet theyunderstood it as a source of discriminationrelevant to other forms of discrimination incontemporary society, instead of linking it tothe subsequent history of Japan–Koreainternational politics.

The anti-discrimination approach wasconsolidated in Takatsuki’s public schools asMukuge became influential. Yee Kyung-jae,who played the leading role in the 1969Rokuchu graduation ceremony, concernedabout the delinquent behavior of youngerKoreans, launched Mukuge in 1972 to create aplace “where Korean kids could get togetherand educate each other.”[58] Soon, he realizedthat his activism should be directed to theimprovement of the local community andcreated a community-based children’s club in1978 in Nariai, separate from the school-basedchildren’s clubs. Working in a quarry during

APJ | JF 5 | 12 | 0

13

the day, he mentored younger Koreans andhelped them with their school work in theevening. Denied support from Mindan andChongryun, which directed attention to thehomeland, not to life in Japan, he collaboratedwith other young activists in Takatsuki, bothKorean and Japanese, to open children’s clubsin other locations in the city.[59]

Like his teachers, Mr. Yee did not use the termminzoku. Critical of the Korean nationalistideology associated with that term, he avoidedit. He used the socially stigmatized term“Chosenjin” (Korean), by which he meant thestatus of the oppressed. He was committed to“transforming that position into a positive,collective one.”[60] He thought his ethnicconsciousness was low, but he started ethnicactivism because of his resistance to socialdiscrimination. At Mukuge, under hisleadership, the use of a Korean name conveyeda “resistance identity,”[61] rather than aKorean ethno-national identity. Mukuge startedcultural programs in 1982, but they were tiedto political activism; Mukuge members playedKorean music at festivals for the antinuclearmovement and performed Korean dance inlocal festivals to assert Koreans’ politicalpresence.[62]

Mukuge’s young activists lobbied the TakatsukiCity Board of Education to seek financialsupport for their activities. Arguing that theywere fighting social discrimination in the city,which honored the idea of human rights, theysucceeded in getting annual budgets, albeit insmall amounts.[63] They expanded educationalactivities for children and started literacycourses for elderly Koreans. In response totheir activism, in 1982 the city created “theBasic Guideline of Education for ResidentForeigners of Takatsuki City”, long beforeother cities made similar guidelines. Inconjunction with the guideline, the City Boardof Education implemented “the EducationProject for Resident Koreans” in 1985,assuming the financial responsibility for

running Mukuge’s educational programs andhiring a few fulltime instructors. Under theproject, those instructors worked for bothschool-based and community-based children’sclubs and consolidated their status in thepublic school system, as Mukuge hoped theywould.[64] In this way, Mukuge assumed acentral role in ethnic education in TakatsukiCity.

To be sure, Japanese teachers continued to playan important role in the educational movementin the city. As Mukuge activists recognized,their negotiation with the city would not havebeen successful without support fromRokuchu’s teachers and the city’s Teachers’Union.[65] Creating a special committee oneducation for Koreans in 1974, Kodokyo(Takatsuki City Association for the Study ofBurakumin Education) tried to open morechildren’s clubs in schools, encouragedteachers to pay attention to the ethnicbackground of Korean children, and tackled jobdiscrimination against Korean graduates.[66]In 1976, the City Board of Education startedpublishing a bi-annual magazine Chindarure toprovide teaching materials and methods forethnic education. Many Japanese teachersengaged enthusiastically in co-teachingchildren’s clubs with Korean instructors and“teaching Korea correctly.” As this expressionsuggests, many teachers in Takatsuki’s schoolsjoined ZOK and learned from its activism.

Mukuge activists approached education forKorean children in connection with ethnicdiscrimination prevailing in various facets ofeveryday life, especially employment. Theynegotiated with the city and succeeded in 1979in eliminating the nationality requirement fromeligibility to take some public-sector jobs. Thisrequirement was a major source of jobdiscrimination against resident Koreans. Incooperation with another activist group,Mukuge also created in 1990 the Society forPreserving Tachiso (see above), and tried tokeep alive the cruel history of forced laborers

APJ | JF 5 | 12 | 0

14

brought over to Nariai from colonial Korea.

As it joined Mintoren in the 1980s and began towork with Tokkabi, Mukuge expanded its civil-rights agenda, participating in the anti-fingerprinting movement and fighting theexclusion of Koreans from the NationalPension. Fighting together in the civil-rightsmovement, Mukuge and Tokkabi activistsclosely collaborated for their educationalprograms, exchanging instructors for children’sclubs. They came to share the same goal, i.e.,to create a society where Japanese and Koreanscould “live together,” the key theme ofMintoren’s activism.

Mintoren’s approach was delineated in the1992 booklet by Korean and Japaneseeducators working with Mukuge andTokkabi.[67] The goal of education was to teachKorean children to live as zainichi, as peoplehaving ethnic roots in the Korean Peninsulaand residing in Japan. Three objectives wereidentified to attain this goal: to develop ethnicconsciousness and the awareness of oppressedstatus; to improve academic achievement atschool; and to develop a will to fight ethnicdiscrimination and gain citizenship rights.Mintoren stressed the need for politicalactivism to secure Korean graduates’ academicand career opportunities, criticizing culture-centered ethnic education that lacked thispolitical perspective. Mintoren advocated thecreation of group unity among Koreans as wellas the idea of co-living (kyosei) betweenKoreans and Japanese. Japanese children wereadmitted to children’s clubs as long as theyhelped Koreans develop ethnic consciousness.Learning culture, such as Korean dance andmusic, was considered important not as an endin itself, but to develop ethnic pride and fightethnic discrimination. Thus, Mintoren’sapproach to ethnic education centered on anti-discrimination.

Orchestrating the civil rights movementenergetically, Mintoren emerged in the 1980s

as a strong alternative to Mindan, Chongryun,and other Korean organizations. Against thisbackdrop, Mukuge and Tokkabi presented theireducational approach as distinct fromMinsokkyo’s and ZOK’s. They selected theirown instructors as shidoin for children’s clubs,taking exception to Minsokkyo’s practice ofsending instructors to ethnic classes in OsakaPrefecture. Mukuge even accepted Japanese asshidoin if they were committed to fightingethnic discrimination, and it differentiateditself from Minsokkyo, which hired only Koreaninstructors. Tokkabi, formulating its ownmethod for dealing with Korean names,criticized ZOK teachers for “imposing” the useof Korean names on children who had yet todevelop a political subjectivity.[68]

Thus, in Osaka Prefecture there was tensionbetween the two camps: those advocating theanti-discrimination approach and thosefavoring the ethnic-culture approach. Individualteachers drew on both approaches. Yet, thetension between the two camps was intense,involving not only education but also politicalideologies. The tension was most intenseamong Koreans who were sharply divided overpolitics. As for Japanese teachers, the tensionwas translated into an organizational conflictbetween ZOK and the mainstream Zenchokyoin the early 1990s. The latter favored the anti-discrimination approach and worked withMintoren. That tension has persisted to thisday.

Korean Ethnic Education and MulticulturalEducation

Since the 1990s, there have been changes inKorean ethnic education in Osaka Prefecturelargely due to the shrinking size of the residentKorean population. An increase in the numberof Koreans naturalizing to become Japanesecitizens and the high rate of Koreans marryingJapanese nationals have contributed to thisdecrease.[69] In the early 1990s, Mukuge andTokkabi, facing reduction in the number of

APJ | JF 5 | 12 | 0

15

Koreans participating in their programs,decided to include children of newcomerforeigners who had moved into the cities. Bythe early 2000s, their programs had becomemult iethnic , wi th only a few Koreanparticipants.[70] Meanwhile, Osaka Mintorendisbanded in 1995 due to internal conflicts. InOsaka City, with a much larger resident Koreanpopulation, the reduction of the number ofparticipants in ethnic classes has been takingplace more slowly, and the number of ethnicclasses is stil l increasing. Yet Koreaninstructors have noticed a rapid increase in thenumber of children of Korean–Japaneseparentage with Japanese nationality.

The 20th anniversary booklet of Mukuge: It is Fun tobe Ethnic

The 30th anniversary booklet of Mukuge: It is Fun tobe Multiethnic

Although the basic tenets of the twoapproaches have been maintained as valid, theyhave to be adjusted to new situations. The anti-discrimination approach of Mukuge andTokkabi has been adopted and adapted forchildren of newcomers. In Osaka’s ethnicclasses, the ethnic-culture approach has beenmodified to fit the hybridized backgrounds ofthe children. While adhering to the rule ofadmitting to ethnic classes only those childrenof ful l or partial Korean descent, theassociation of Korean instructors, now with theKorea NGO Center,[71] has begun tocollaborate with educators dealing withchildren of newcomers. Thus, Korean ethniceducation has been linked to education forchildren of diverse ethnic backgrounds.

Multiculturalists in today’s Japan can learnmuch from the old practice of Korean ethnic

APJ | JF 5 | 12 | 0

16

education. The political interpretation of kyosei(living together) may be the most importantidea. Facing children of foreigners, Japaneseteachers need to deal with the question of howto live together with different nationals, aquestion hardly discussed in the importedliterature on multicultural education.To elucidate how this question was tackled inKorean ethnic education, let us compare thetwo approaches. Korean children wereexpected to develop different types ofsubjectivity: a Korean ethno-nationalsubjectivity linked to the homeland and apolitical subjectivity committed to fightingethnic discrimination in Japan. They wereencouraged to develop different kinds ofrelationships with their Japanese schoolmates,who were taught to respect them as foreignnationals or to fight together with them againstethnic discrimination.

These differences arose from the different waysin which the two camps of people understoodKoreans in Japan: as Korean nationals in theDiaspora or as zainichi seeking civil rights inJapan as an ethnic group. Japanese and Koreanactivists in the two camps collaborateddifferently. In one camp, they fought togetheras different nationals with each national groupin charge of “teaching Korea correctly” orteaching ethnic classes. In the other, nationalboundaries could be crossed, and Koreans andJapanese could unite as comrades to fighttogether. The two camps sought to createdifferent kinds of human relationships on theschool campus and in society. Mintoren tried tocreate a society where Koreans and Japanesecould live together without discriminationagainst ethnic minorities. ZOK and Minsokkyoalso sought to achieve co-living betweenKoreans and Japanese, though they did not usethe term explicitly until the 2000s. For them, itmeant living together as different nationals onan equal footing.

The idea of co-living not only constituted thegoal of activism for both camps but also shaped

the process of their political activism. Let usexamine this idea. The term kyosei has beeninterpreted in two major ways: as the conceptof living together in harmony, and as a processof rectifying social inequality. The formermeaning is used widely and the term usuallyrefers to this meaning. The latter, a morecritical and philosophical meaning, has beendeveloped in the context of social activism, i.e.,in civil rights movements for people withdisabilities and for women. It refers to theprocess of trying to achieve co-living, ratherthan to the goal of co-living itself, though thisgoal is also called kyosei. Underlying thisparadox is the realization that co-living isextremely difficult to achieve and requires aserious engagement in the process of attainingit. Kyosei as a political process is furtherdifferentiated by stressing in that process thepolitical subjectivity of the oppressed or thesense of responsibility of the majoritypeople.[72] In the ethnic education movement,Koreans and Japanese in both camps engagedin kyosei, taking their respective kyoseipositions. Probably, the significance of thismovement lies in the activists’ seriousengagement in kyosei, though neither campused this term to describe their efforts. The twocamps thus shared a great deal in regard to theprocess of activism, despite their differences inpolitical orientations and educationalapproaches.

From Korean ethnic education, multiculturalistteachers can learn how to grasp education inpolitical terms. As discussed above, educationfocusing on newcomer children tends to bemerely cultural, embracing the goal of livingtogether in harmony, kyosei. Teachers canavoid this tendency by practicing kyosei as apolitical process. In fact, such efforts havealready been made. The prevailing use of theidea of human rights in multicultural educationpolicies can be traced to the anti-discriminationapproach.[73] Teachers familiar with thisapproach pay close attention to political andsocial circumstances surrounding newcomer

APJ | JF 5 | 12 | 0

17

children.[74] Teachers dealing with newcomerchildren can also make use of the ethnic-culture approach and polit icize theirmulticultural education in an internationalframework. As many of those children and theirfamilies maintain close ties with theirhomelands, teachers need to pay attention toJapan’s foreign policies, which shape theirdiasporic lives.

To be sure, both approaches had problems. Theethnic-culture approach was criticized for itsassociation with Korean nationalist ideology,and the anti-discrimination approach for itsreduction of Korean ethnicity to ethnicdiscrimination. Neither approach could escapethe charge of essentializing Korean ethnicity.New generations of educators dealing withchildren of Korean descent need to tackle theseproblems as well as new problems whilecollaborating with those working with childrenof newcomers

One of the important problems in thiscollaboration is how to deal with ethnicallyhybrid children who are Japanese nationals.This problem points to the need to debunk themyth of homogeneity among people withinnational boundaries. It is a challenging problemin today’s Japan where the tide of nationalismand xenophobia is deepening the dividebetween “Japanese” and “foreigners.” Childrenof Korean descent have been subjected toassaults, verbal and physical, triggered by the2002 confirmation of North Korea’s abductionof Japanese nationals, while children ofnewcomers have been perceived in relation tothe idea of foreigners’ crimes exaggerated bythe media. Multiculturalists need to intervenein this social climate not only by stressingkyosei but also by interrogating the concept ofJapaneseness.

Conclusion: Korean Ethnic Education andMulticultural Co-living

Spreading in Japan simultaneously with neo-

nationalism, the discourse of multicultural co-living (tabunka kyosei) can turn into “its ownform of nationalism.”[75] The term kyosei asharmonious co-living has been used since thelate 1990s by local and central governments aswell as by business organizations concernedabout the increasing numbers of newcomerforeigners. As David Chapman rightly pointsout, when used by those in positions of power,“the discourse of tabunka kyosei in Japan hasmuch in common with the ways in which othernation-states attempt to manage diversity bythe strategic inclusion of difference.”[76] Thediscourse is deployed to contain ethnicdiversity within the three Fs and includedisfranchised foreigners in a community of co-living with Japanese citizens as if they weree q u a l t o e a c h o t h e r . U n l i k e t h emulticulturalism discourse that stressesnational unity, this discourse is also used toexclude foreigners as different, and thereby tosolidify Japanese national boundaries. Thus, thediscourse of tabunka kyosei used by people inpositions of power is both inclusive andexclusive, serving to protect culturalhomogeneity and national boundaries. Analyzedthis way, it is not very different from theassimilationist discourse of the multiethnicJapanese empire, which deprived colonizedKoreans of their culture and language while atthe same time propagating the idea of co-prosperity in East Asia.

It is this emerging hegemonic discourse oftabunka kyosei that Korean and Japaneseactivists involved in ethnic education are nowfighting, while using the identical expression.By drawing on their own experience ofeducational activism and engaging in thepolitical process of kyosei, they may be able tostay away from both the inclusive and exclusiveforces of the hegemonic discourse, and find away to rejuvenate ethnic education for childrenof Korean descent, which is central to themaintenance of the political and culturalpresence of Korean ethnicity in Japan. Thismaintenance is important for Koreans, other

APJ | JF 5 | 12 | 0

18

foreign residents, and the Japanese themselves,precisely because it is a reminder that today’smultiethnic Japan should not repeat the past.

In the current stage of activism, the oppositionbetween the two camps may be an asset. If theanti-discrimination approach with its concernabout civil rights offers a way to combat theexclusive force, the ethnic-culture approachpoints to a way to maintain cultural differenceand fight the inclusive force. The twoapproaches thus provide different strategies forcombating hegemonic discourse. Moreover,they suggest multiple identity positions, aKorean (or Vietnamese) Japanese, a denizen, aKorean (or Brazilian) in the diaspora, and atransnational citizen, the positions that havealready been taken by many under theinfluence of the two approaches. Themultiplicity of identity positions among peopleof foreign descent may undermine the Japanesenational boundaries that the hegemonicdiscourse is meant to protect.

This article extends and develops “KoreanEthnic Education in Japanese Public Schools,”Asian Ethnicity 8.1 (2007): 5-23. Eika Tai isAssociate Professor at North Carolina StateUniversity. Her publications include:“Redefining Japan as ‘Multiethnic,’”: AnExhibition at the National Museum ofEthnology in Spring 2004,” MuseumAnthropology (2005); “‘Korean Japanese’: ANew Identity Option for Resident Koreans inJapan,” Critical Asian Studies (2004). For moreinformation, open here.

This article was posted at Japan Focus onDecember 27, 2007.

Notes[1] E. San Juan Jr., Racism and Cultural Studies(Duke University Press, 2002), 9.[2] Carl A. Grant and Joy L. Lei, eds., GlobalConstructions of Multicultural Education(London: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2001).

[3] Nakajima Tomoko, Tabunka kyoiku tozainichi chosenjin kyoiku (Kyoto: Zenkokuzainichi chosenjin kyoiku kenkyu kyogikai,1995), 45.[4] Much of the following discussion is basedon my fieldwork in Osaka between 2001 and2006. I interviewed activists and researchers.[5] Stephen May, “Critical MulticulturalEducation and Cultural Difference: AvoidingEssent ia l i sm,” in May, ed. , Cr i t ica lMulticulturalism: Rethinking Multicultural andAntiracist Education (London: Falmer Press,1999), 5.[6 ] Baogang He and Wi l l Kyml icka ,“Introduct ion,” in Kymlicka and He,Multiculturalism in Asia (New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 2005), 23.[7] Grant and Lei, Global Constructions, xv.[8] Stanley Fish, “Boutique Multiculturalism, orWhy Liberals are Incapable of Thinking aboutHate Speech,” Critical Inquiry 23 (1997):378-95.[9] Matsunami Megumi, “Nyukama jissen nimiru kyoshi no ‘zainichi gaikokujin kyoiku’kan,” in Nakajima Tomoko, ed., 1970 nendai ikono zainichi KankokuChosenjin kyoiku-kenkyu tojissen no taikeiteki kenkyu (Osaka: PooleGakuin University, 2004),194.[10] Enoi Yukari, “Tabunka kyosei kyoiku tokokusai jinken,” Kaiho kyoiku 397 (2001): 8-17.[11] May, “Critical Multicultural Education,”11.[12] The new nationality law of 2000 allowschildren born in Germany to non-Germanparents to hold both a passport of theirparents’ nationality and a German passportuntil age twenty-three. Germany has beenincreasingly seen as a country of immigration.[13] Okano Kaori, “The Global-local Interface inMulticultural Education Policies in Japan,”Comparative Education 42.4 (2006): 473-91.[14] San Juan, Racism, 9.[15] Brett Klopp, German Multiculturalism:Immigrant Integration and the Transformationof Citizenship (London: Praeger, 2002), 187.[16] Ralph Grillo, “Immigration and the Politicsof Recognizing Difference in Italy,” in Grillo

APJ | JF 5 | 12 | 0

19

and Jeff Pratt, eds., The Politics of RecognizingDifference: Multiculturalism Italian-style(Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002).[17] Okano, “Global-local.”[18] Nakajima Tomoko, “‘Bunka’ ‘jinken’ niokeru ‘kokoro-shugi’ to ‘kotoba-shugi,’” HumanRights Education Review 1.1 (1997): 25-30.[19] Jeffry T. Hester, “Kids between Nations:Ethnic Classes in the Construction of KoreanIdentities in Japanese Public Schools,” in SoniaRyang, ed., Koreans in Japan: Critical Voicesfrom the Margin (New York: Routledge, 2000),193.[20] Lee Changsoo, “Ethnic Education andNational Politics,” in Lee and George DeVos,eds., Koreans in Japan: Ethnic Conflict andAccommodation (Los Angeles: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981), 163-66.[21] Ibid., 163-66.[22] Sugitani Yoriko, “‘Kangaeru-kai’ noayumi,” in Zenchokyo Osaka Kangaeru-kai, ed.,Mukuge (Tokyo: Aki Shobo, 1981), 15-42.[23] Mukuge, 30 (August 2001).[24] Sugitani, “‘Kangaeru-kai’ no ayumi.”[25] Lee, “ Ethnic Education,” 168-69. Therewere some schools affiliated with Mindan.[26] Ozawa Yusaku, Zainichi Chosenjin Kyoiku-ron (Tokyo: Aki Shobo, 1973), 468.[27] Sugitani, “‘Kangaeru-kai’ no ayumi.”[28] Fukumoto Taku, “Changes in KoreanPopulation Concentrations in Osaka City fromthe 1920s to the Early 1950s,” Jinbun Chiri56.2 (2004): 42-57.[29] Asahi Shinbun Osaka, 22 January 1957.[30] Mukuge, 30 August 2001.[31] Inatomi Susumu, Nihon Shakai noKokusaika to Jinken Kyoiku (Osaka: KinkiInsatsu Puro, 2005), 3-5.[32] ZOK is taken from the current name of theassociation, Zenchokyo Osaka Kangaeru-kai.ZOK publishes Mukuge, an organizationalmagazine.[33] Mukuge 30, August 2001.[34] Osaka-shi Minzoku Koshikai (OMK),Minzoku Gakkyu (Osaka: Yuniwârudo, 1997),112.[35] Sugitani, “Kangaeru-kai,” 21. Leftist

members o f ZOK were support ive o fChongryun, which defined its members as“overseas nationals of North Korea.”[36] Mukuge, 30 April 1976.[37] Mukuge, 30 August 2001.[38] Mukuge, 30 August 2001.[39] Japanese teachers donated money tosupport Korean lecturers.[40] Mukuge, 30 August 2001.[41] Inatomi, Nihon Shakai, 22.[42] Sugitani, “Kangaeru-kai,” 22.[43] Inatomi, Nihon Shakai, 26.[44] Mukuge, 30 October 1976.[45] Inatomi, Nihon Shakai, 6.[46] OMK, Minzoku Gakkyu, 84.[47] Sugitani, “Kangaeru-kai,” 27.[48] Kishida Yumi, “Minzoku no tame no kyoikuto kyoiku no tame no minzoku,” in Nakajima,1970 nendai iko, 42-59.[49] Takatsuki City Board of Education (TCBE),Zainichi KankokuChosenjin mondai o kangaeru(Osaka: Takatsuki City, 1990).[50] Mintoren, Hansabetsu to jinken nominzoku kyoiku o (Osaka: Mintoren, 1992), 12.[51] Fukuoka Yasunori, Lives of Young Koreansin Japan (Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press,2000), 63.[52] Sonia Nieto, Language, Culture, andTeaching: Critical Perspectives for a NewCentury (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,2002), 246-7.[53] Sonia Nieto, Affirming Diversity: TheSociopolitical Context of MulticulturalEducation (New York: Longman, 1992), 208-21.[54] Kodokyo, Kodokyo 30-nen no Ayumi(Osaka: ABC Kobo, 1991).[55] Asahi Gurafu, 25 April 1969.[56] TCBE, Zainichi, 82.[57] Kodokyo, Kodokyo, 70.[58] Fukuoka, Lives, 65.[59] Ibid., 66.[60] Abdul R. JanMohamed and David Lloyd,“Introduction: Minority Discourse,” Critique 7(1987): 5-17.[61] Manuel Castells, The Power of Identity(Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1997), 8.[62] Takatsuki Mukuge-no-kai (TM), Minzoku

APJ | JF 5 | 12 | 0

20

dakara Omoshiroi (Osaka: Mukuge-no-kai,1992), 52.[63] TM, Minzoku, 16-17.[64] TM, Minzoku, 24.[65] TM, Minzoku, 17.[66] Kodokyo, Kodokyo, 74-82.[67] Mintoren, Hansabetsu to Jinken noMinzoku Kyoiku o (Osaka: Mintoren Mintoren,1992).[68] Mukuge, 26 November 1979.[69] About 10,000 Koreans have becomeJapanese nationals per year since themid-1990s. More than 80 per cent of marriagesinvolving Koreans are interethnic.[70] Tai Eika, “Korean Activism and Ethnicity inthe Changing Ethnic Landscape of Urban

Japan,” Asian Studies Review 30 (2006): 41-58.[71] The Korea NGO Centre was created in2004 out of Minsokkyo and two other groups.[72] Eika Tai, “‘Multicultural Co-living’ and itsPotential,” The Journal of Human Rights 3(2003): 41-52.[73] Okano, “Global-local.”[74] Matsunami, “Nyukama,” 196.[75] Michelle Anne Lee, “Multiculturalism asNationalism: a Discussion of Nationalism inPluralistic Nations,” Canadian Review ofStudies in Nationalism XXX (2003): 103-23.[76] David Chapman, “Discourses ofMulticultural Coexistence (tabunka kyosei) andthe ‘Old-comer’ Korean Residents of Japan,”Asian Ethnicity 7.1 (2006): 89-102, 100.