Abstract

The beginning of my study can trace back to 1998 when I joined the international Human Rights Exchange program with Australian indigenous people held at a Buraku community in Kagawa prefecture. I had big influence on my life and my thought to Buraku problem and it liberation movement through this program. Thought the middle and long term field work, I have gradually realized how I can compare and contrast between Buraku problems and Australian indigenous peoples problem and how we can share our knowledge and experiences for our practical movements such as the movement for the environmental management. In so doing, recently I am taking the comparative research between Yorta Yorta Aboriginal community at the south east Australia with two Buraku communities, that is, C Buraku community where I was born and grow up and A community where Mori was born and grow up. Recently, I am much focusing on the comparative study in terms of the some practices on the environmental management between the Yorta Yorta Aborigianl community and A community because of the similar situation in that they both are taking the forest and liver management. Thus, in this presentation after my report on the Yorta Yorta people asked Mori to report some practical cases on the environmental management in A.

Overview of Research Area

The main areas of my study are the following towns and city located on around 250 km up to the north from the Melbourne city; Echuca town, Moama town, Barmah village and Cummeragunga Aboriginal community around Barmah forest, and Mooroopna town and Shepparton city along the Golbern River diverging from Murray River.

Barmah forest is part of the largest River Red Gum wetland in the world with the second longest Murray River and the size of the forest is around 30,000h hector. Moria and Millawa forests are the neighbors with Barmah forest. The forest has more than 385 species of indigenous flora and 273 species of indigenous fauna and is listed as a wetland of international significance under the Ramsar Convention and moreover reaches two Migratory Birds Agreements with Japan and China. The Barmah forest cantains many sites of cultural significance to the Aboriginal people. the study areas including the Barmah forest abound in the agricultural industry such as fruits, vegetables, rice, dairies, and livestock industry. Most of people in the agricultural industry are the ascendants of the Anglo-Celt settlers who immigrated into this area around 1840s. [1]

White Australia and Yorta Yorta

According to 2006 census, the total number of indigenous Australia is around 420,000 and it is about 2.3 percent out of all of Australian population. Around 73 percent out of all indigenous population lives in urban area (more then 10,000) and in suburban area (from 9999 to 2000). Intermarriage rate is more than 68.7 percent. The percent of Indigenous population in Victoria comparing with the percent of total Victorian population is 0.6 percent. By comparison with this small percent, the percent of cities and towns where Yorta Yorta mainly live is the following; Echuca is 3.1 percent, Shepparton is 4.5 percent, and Barmah is more than 20 percent. Thus, it is clear that the number of Yorta Yorta in these cities and towns is quite high. In addition to these cities and towns, nowadays Yorta Yorta mainly live in the cities and towns along the Murray and Golbern River basin and total number of them is over 5000 (Map 1).

Yorta Yorta Land Right Movement

Yorta Yorta is an eminent Aboriginal group among the over 40 Victorian Aboriginal groups. They strongly continue to fight for their civil, political, and social rights and to conduct 18 times land rights movements in the wider society. Their home mainly locates in Barmah, Moira and Millawa forests on the border between New South Wales and Victoria.

Yorta Yorta has actively set movements for demanding equrl rights as an Australian citizen through some organizations run by Yorta Yorta since 1930s. The aim of Yorta Yorta movements since 1970s has concentrated on the management for the resources in the forest, rivers and rakes. The current phase of the Aboriginal rights movement was triggered by the passage of the Native Title Act by the federal government in 1993. The following year until 2002 the Yorta Yorta submitted their claim against about 500 oppositions including individuals, companies and governments in terms of the following demands; 1) their control for resources in the claimant areas and the rights to occupy, live and posses there, 2) the rights to forbid others to access to the areas without informed consent with claimant, 3) practice the rights and obligation in terms of their traditional law and costumes and 4) the right to use minerals and other resources on and under the ground (Atkinson 2000).

From 1994 to 95 before the start of the Yorta Yorta Native Title Claim trial, the represents of the Yorta Yorta had mediation with the local peoples. The response from the Local people during the mediation process shows that we don’t know what differences between us and the Yorta Yorta because their parents were white. We worked together until yesterday but why they are indigenous people from today? Local newspapers supported for Local people by means of putting local peoples ideas in the opinion section and in the end of the mediation was failed (Atkinson 2000 p103).

Fail of Yorta Yorta Native Claim

Yorta Yorta Native Title Claim was the first claim after Native Title Act 1993 that was result from Mabo desition in 1992[2] Federal Court treated written documents by settlers and mission manager as more proper historical documents than oral documents by Yorta Yorta individuals and judged “tide of the Yorta Yorta history”. Accordingly, High Court accepted the federal court decision and dismissed the claim as 5 to 2.

Outcome from the Movement

Improvement of the recent condition of land for Yorta Yorta in Vic is next to none. 1500 ac out of 2570 ac of all Cummeraguga site was returned as 99 years free fold land in 1983. The result from 1980s movement brought the construction of Darnya cultural center to Yorta Yorta[3] Indigenous Land Corporation, which was founded in 1995 purchased 2 lands to Yorta Yorta nation in 2000; Yerlima 258ha and Boundary Bend 194ha. In 1999, Yorta Yorta Nation made an alliance with other 9 indigenous groups along the Murray-Darling lower Rivers and set the Indigenous nations, which has a right of negotiation on the water management with federal, states and territory government. After the fail of Yorta Yorta Native Title Clime in 2002, Co-operative Management Agreement with Vic State Government was reached in 2004. Dr Wayne Atkinson who is a senior lecturer at the University of Melbourne and Yorta Yorta elder says that one of the significant outcomes from the Native Title Claim is to attract the great deal of attention on the Yorta Yorta issue from local and international NGOs including student and intellectuals from the city.

The Co-operative Management Agreement on the forest and river

The Co-operative Management Agreement on the forest and river was reached between the Yorta Yorta Nation and Victorian state government in 2004. Objectives of the agreement are to facilitate: the active and resourced involvement of the Yorta Yorta People in decisions about the management of the Designated Areas including the integration of Yorta Yorta knowledge, internal decision-making processes and perspectives into management planning and works programming; 2. the development of mutual recognition and trust; 3. the identification and promotion of employment, training and economic development opportunities for the Yorta Yorta People. Although this agreement stressed the promotion of employment, traing and economic development opportunities as one of the aims, my study in 2006 revealed that unemployment rate of the Yorta Yorta in Cummeragunga Aboriginal Community and Barmah Village was more than 64 percent.[4]

Conflict on VEAC Recommendation

The land and river co-operative management agreement in 2004 desginated around 50,000 hc as designated area including a part of the Murray River, which is the second longest River in Australia and the Barmah forest, which is part of the largest River Red Gum wetland in the world, and Barmah state forest.

This co-operative management agreement has been encouraging Victoria government and the Yorta Yorta to have some meeting for mutual understandin. Especially, Victorian Environmental Assessment Committee established in 2001 and, instead of Victoria state government, has been in charge of investigation for the quality and amount of the water in Murray and other rivers connecting with Murray and for the forest condition and bio-diversity in the Barmah state Forest. This committee handed out 2 significant research reports. The first report in 2006 focuses on the geological, historical, economic, political and environment conditions within the study area. The second report in 2007 set the explicit proposal and recommendations for the land and water management and takes many parts in this report for co-operative management with Aboriginal Traditional Owner. To inform this second report on the local and national levels, VEAC hold public meeting at the 8 local cities and Melbourne. From six of August to 25^th of September in 2007. Among these meetings, I attended 4 meetings and took some interviews from participants in these meetings. As the result, it disclosed that there are 3 different figures; that is, local people including the saw millers, grazers, and pastorals, indigenous people and local and international NGOs including student and intellectuals from the city.

Different types of opinions toward the VEAC proposal shows how difficult each stakeholders can reach the agreement. Moreover, premier in Victoria states government from labor government who was erected in September 2007 addressed that he doesn’t support this proposal. In additions to this research through the public meeting, I analyzed the different types of opinions from Local people, Indigenous people and others (including individuals and organization) on the VEAC proposals in terms of the following questions; for, neutral, against through 290 articles in the 4 local news papers from January 2005 to March 2008. In 2005 and 2006 opposite or neutral opinions from local people and other people and organization toward VEAC activity are set out. It also shows that although the many support opinions from Indigenous people appears, the opposite opinion from local people and other people and organizations dramatically increased in 2007. in addition to these tendencies, it also reveals that local peoples oppose not only to VEAC proposal but also to local and international NGOs (from 2005 to 2008; 29 articles). On the other hand not many local stakholders oppose to Yorta Yorta. One of the reasons on this is that Yorta Yorta treats the VEAC proposal as a fundamental topic for us in terms of ‘environmental problem’. This seems a tactics by some Yorta Yorta intellectuals to promote their specific rights as the indigenous people within this topic. Besids this, one of the 16 familes in Yorta Yorta Nation, Bangeraong support the local stakeholders. One of the examples on the tactics by some Yorta Yorta intellectuals, they have encouraged some local and international NGOs to join the dispute on the VEAC proposal and NGOs have participate in the dispute through the local newspapers and medias.

As a consequence, my study revealed that there are four different views; first is the view from VEAC that proposes national parks and protection of biodiversity and environment in the study area. Second is the view from local people who oppose to VEAC proposals due to the possibility of losing their jobs in the forests and rivers. Third is the view from local and international NGOs including urban intellectuals that support VEAC proposal and Indigenous people demand and have an interest in international and national lows. Last is the view from Indigenous people who demand for acknowledgement as traditional owner that is a care taker in Barmah forest. VEAC submitted the final proposal to the Minister for Environment and Climate Change in July 2008.

Meaning of Movement and Practice for Environmental Management

It has overviewed the history of Yorta Yorta movement and concerned the movement itself throught the recent cases. I would like to clarify the meaning of the Movement from the Yorta Yorta accounts.

Monitoring for the Forest Management

Parks Victoria was established as an agency that is in charge of the State forest management under the Department of Sustainability and Environment in 1980s. PV and DSE have conducted comparative monitoring with 9 square sites on the side of Barmah Lake in terms of 3 different ways; fire, chemical and grass slashing. Nowadays, there has been a disastrous situation on the native grass at the wet site of the monitoring since the big drought attacked. Due to this drought, Gaiant Rash which can survive with a little amount of water has been widely spread and other native grasses cannot grow. Thus, for improving this situation as well as recovering environment for fauna and flora, this monitoring continues until 2010.

This monitoring is a program of the land and river co-operative management agreement between the Yorta Yorta Nation Inc and the Victoria states government so it also takes a strong consideration for the relationship with Yorta Yorta people. Particularly, in PV, three Yorta Yorta staff (Female 2 and Male 1) work and they are playing a significant role in this monitoring. Furthermore DSE set a half year program to improve and promote an employment opportunity for Yorta Yorta Youths and after finishing the program, students can be qualified as a rangier in the National Park. The body which is in charge of this program is called as Green Coops that consists of one leader and 8 students who are all Yorta Yorta descendants.[5]

Before colonization, fire management is one of the significant methods to maintain the forest ecology for Yorta Yorta ancestor. Now, Yorta Yorta cannot take the same way of fire management. A Yorta Yorta elder, Colin Walker explains the reason of this as following;

In the past time, flood season was end of the winter or beginning of spring until 1919, but this season was changed to the end of summer or beginning of autumn because the dams and reservoirs along the Murray River were built for storage of the irrigational water for pastoral stocks and crops. As a consequence, the number of native grasses dramatically decrees which existed before 1830s. Under the circumstances, the fire management by the Yorta Yorta ancestors has been gradually noticed by the Victorian state government. However, fire management way at present changed to the technological way.

Fishing in Leisure

From July to September 2007, every weekend I joined the river fishing with three Aboriginal males (2 males are not Burkanji descendants and 1 is Yorta Yorta) and inquired how to use river resources in their daily lives through Video taking. The elder Colin Walker addresses the following comments on how the relationship with the river is important part in Yorta Yorta individual daily lives;

Meaning of the Movements from Yorta Yorta Accounts

As for the meaning of the Land Rights movements, according to the interview from Yorta Yorta individuals, 20s, 30s and 60s aware the difficulty in making decision of their Country but most of all recognize Barmah and Cummeragunga as their country. All interviews had or have experiences to join land rights movements. As for the role of elders, except one negative opinion from 20s, all interviewees evaluate the significant role of elders in that they can learn lots from Elders in the present. However more than 40 years old interviewees stress the point that elders lost their trust from young generations. As for the oral tradition from present generation to the next generation, all interviewees emphasize a strong self-esteem as Aboriginal and skills on hunting, fishing and gathering as well as ritual things.

The meaning of land for the Yorta Yorta through these actions appear in the following account from the Yorta Yorta male Neville Atkinson.

This presentation has tried to clarify the relationship between Indigenous people and local people concerning the Yorta Yorta land rights movements. Consequently, it revealed that the present movements and practices of the land and river management still rely on the conflict situation between Yorta Yorta and other stakeholders, which has been razed since the colonial time. Furthermore, it can be said that the meaning of the land right movement for Yorta Yorta is ‘the movement for environmental management’ through the following two perceptions; first is ‘the reward for our elders effort and the strong self-esteem for the next generation.’ and another is ‘nourishment for life’ inherited from ancestors.

Recent Yorta Yorta land and water movement has been taking a new sift from the conventional binary  and homogenize structure, which consists of Indigenous people, local people and governments to the multiple structures, which consist of the local and international NGOs and the urban intellectuals.

The different opinions on the VEAC proposal have deeply related with the colonization but what is an interesting in this situation is the part to play of the local and international NGOS and urban intellectuals. Due to their intervention into the Yorta Yorta movement for environmental management, what local people is opposing is not to the indigenous people who identifies as identifiable community under the Native Title act but to Yorta Yorta who identifies as indigenous nation, which has the rights to control their natural resources on the ally with local and international NGOs and urban intellectuals. The Yorta Yorta rand rights movement through the Indigenous nations and the co-operative agreement dose not require who indigenous people is but places in the contact zone where both indigenous people and other stakeholders can be adaptable in the new unsymmetrical power structure when they contact each other.

MORI Maya

My field site, the A area, is a non-urban Buraku community outside of Kyoto containing less than 150 households. The A area is the soil that gave birth to and raised me, and is the homeland of my mother. Up to my grandparents’ generation, the area supported itself through agriculture and farming, and was one of the Buraku held by the line of Lord Nijou Onniwa Kiyomemaru, who according to the Yasutomi Record of 1443, lived in Saekinosho Hayatonoho Nai. My patrilineal grandfather relocated to Japan from Taiwan or labor at the age of 16, at the time of Japan’s colonial rule. He met my grandmother, born to my great grandfather, the then head of the town Tanko in Fukuoka, and my grandmother gave birth to a child in the confusion immediately following the war. That child was raised in society without citizenship, the second generation of nationless Japan residents. That child was my father.

I have lived life feeling bodily this multiple historicity. At university I studied sociology where I developed an interest in the current situation of issues of Buraku discrimination, the limits of standardized research on representations of Burakumin and their identity, as well as Buraku communities. Within the realm of Japanese sociology, issues of Buraku discrimination became the subject of academic inquiry in the 1980s.

In 1980, Shikimoto Gotaro (then the vice-chairman of the Joint Association of the Kanagawa Prefecture Buraku Liberation League), participant in the Japanese Sociology Association, left behind these words: “I witness here a discipline disconnected from the aspiration of ending Buraku discrimination. This is argument for argument’s sake. The perspective of human liberation is exceedingly far, far, far away from the world of the academy” (quoted in Fukuoka Yasunori, 1980). These words offer an important suggestion for those advancing research in the context of Japanese Buraku.

This is to say, the “practice” of academia is distant from the practice of those people who hope to eliminate Buraku discrimination, who believe in human liberation. This is not a problem of being objective or subjective; rather, it is an issue of the perspective with which researchers approach the practices that comprise the existence of living people.

As I continued to graduate school, I began to realize, cued in by the history of A where I lived and the life histories of its residents, the importance of recording for future generations the wisdom and knowledge born of human beings that I saw in the figure of the A area as told by the people passing through the area.

In this symposium I take as my example concrete practices and lived Buraku history in order to incorporate the “knowledge” of people’s everyday life into the realm of academia or theory, and I would like to emphasize the importance of doing such a thing when discussing “present day Buraku issues.” I also am participating as a panelist in this symposium as a younger person responsible for carrying the Buraku liberation movement into the next generation, and in order to increase the possibility that minorities themselves can share concrete practices from their lives with each other and with researchers.

Introduction

The Balmer Forest, which as Tomonaga Yugo introduces in his paper, is a rich expanse of land that supports migrating birds, managed by the Yorta Yorta indigenous community of South East Australia and registered in the Ramsar Convention. Such migrating birds also alight in the fields and rivers of the A area, markers of the preservation of a rich ecosystem. In the eastern part of A runs a medium sized river called, the “Rive of B.” Some ten kilometers from the area lies a forest called the A Liberation Forest, and the A water line, transferred from a general water main in 2005, is testament to ecological richness of the area.

A’s Buraku liberation movement has an indescribably long history of managing the rivers, forests, and land of the area, and the struggles over education, run by parents and children, was started in the A liberation movement. In this paper, I examine the “present day Buraku situation” by taking up examples from the management of 1 rivers, 2 water works, and 3 forests.

1. The River of B – What is our real name?

In the Souka Record of Kamayama Hanshi of 1844 (the 15^th year of Tempo), there is a record from an interview in Anainu Village, which neighbors the A area: “To the north-east of this village, there is a small stream, a river of heaven, that has been well known for ages among the people of the Anainu Village.” What is currently called the “River of B” was originally called a river of heaven, and was the source of A’s (literally, “Heaven’s River”) name. How and why did the River of B, which runs through the center of life in A, lose its original name, and how might people now recover that “real name”?

Following the modern period, there were repeated floods of the “River of B,” the run off from which soaked the A area. With each flood, large amounts of water drove mud into fields and ruined crops of rice, creating an environment that would not produce anything, and this situation earned the river is name of the “River of B.” In 1960, A established a branch of the Buraku Liberation League, and in 1965 (Showa 40), the report from the meeting on Dowa special measures was released, and work on the “restructuring of the River of B,” as requested by the people of the surrounding towns and villages, was eventually begun in 1970 as part of the Dowa special measures.

Almost twenty years later in 1989, one paragraph of the introduction entitled “Everyone’s Request” of the publication “A Glimmering Life” spends time reflecting on the joy of the village people when the administration started to reconstruct the river and repeats the statement of the then organizer of the A Buraku Liberation movement, Mori Emiko, reflecting on what the people of A had lost:

The widening of roads and building and large magnificent buildings took what little land we had, and broke apart the life-line of the villages, our sense of community. Our narrow though rich stretches of soil, glistening darkly, were filled with pesticides and bleached a dry unhealthy red; the fish and fireflies no longer gather; and our once playful river has, for the sake of “development,” been overlaid with cold concrete. With this our spirits too have been battened down. We are not poor because we lack things, we are poor because we have lost our spirits.

There is no doubt that the reconstruction of the river, while it was, in form, what the residents of the area had requested, was not open to the residents’ participation in detailed planning, and did not yield the result they had imagined. This social situation, and this woman’s words, remind us of Franz Fanon’s theory of the bridge:

If the building of the bridge does not enrich the awareness of those who work on it, then the bridge ought not to be built and the citizens can go on swimming across the river or going by boat. The bridge should not be ‘parachuted down’ from above; it should not be imposed by a dues-ex-machine upon the social scene; on the contrary it should come from the muscles and the brains of the citizens. . . so that the responsibility for [the bridge can be] assumed by the citizen. In this way, and in this way only, everything is possible. (Fanon: 1961)

2. The A Water Supply: Honoring water for its warmth – a story of the water of life

There is a small-scale water supply in A that is said to be the origin point of the liberation league of Kameoka city. In 1955 the A district, then approximately 75 households, had 4 wells within its boundaries. However, the quality of the water was troublesome, and people lived in fear of communicable diseases. One of A’s elders, Maeda Yuzuru recalls, “The call for water facilities in A sprang from the kitchen rumors of women and learned from historical uprisings around rice. . . The cry for liberation from a desperate life, from a life without safe drinking water, initially the cry of a few, became the cry of the entire community, and developed into a community movement.”

In addition, an elementary school teacher from that time, Hirotomi Yasumi, added the following:

Our daily lessons are completely different from how they used to be. The joy of being able to wash your entire body in water like a ball erupting forth has given hope to our students’ lives. The light in their eyes, the bounce in their voice all testify to this change. It really is the water of life. These children, who have grown up with the fight for water, have had their paths lightened by this change. With the organization of the liberation movement, the children were right in the thick of pumping the water, pulling up the hoses themselves. Before that, they had helped their parents pump water from the old wells and had the first hand experience of being distant from the blessings of nature; they and their parents struggled together. With that experience, the struggles of the parents’ of the community were, like it says on the monument to the water system, “born out of the heart-breaking gift of labor, from the combination of blood and sweat and tears” and as expressed in the sentiment, “To future generations do we express – thanks for the water of life and the effort of our forefathers,” do we give thanks for the nurturing force of water in fulfilling our community’s ardent belief that “all people should be able to live happily” and that “with the effort of everyone, all things are possible.” These improvements will help us continue strengthening our community.

The resident’s struggle for water began with the demand simply for secure and safe daily drinking water, and in 1959 resulted in the water supply subsidy system. In 1960 the A water system was inaugurated. For the half century up until March of 2005 when the major water supply system was introduced, this water supply supported the lives of the people of A.

A’s “struggle for water was not simply for water; it, just like the building of the communal well in the Taisho period, involved all the members of the community coming together in the main hall of the temple, and discussing the issue for long hours day and night.” The resolution of A’s water issues was due to a large movement aimed at “protecting human life” – it is remembered now as “a bitter struggle on the part of women and children to protect, on rainy days as on frozen days, the life of the family in the struggle for water.” It is the “story of the water of life.”

3. The Struggle for the A Liberation Forest – Inheriting a Deeper Concept of the Environment

In 1871, at the time that Meiji abolished clans and established prefectures, the allotments distributed for mining and the formation of grassland in the A area were unfair and resulted in the struggle for the A liberation forest demanding a more fair re-distribution. In June of 1974, with the decision of the Kameoka city council, A received control over the management of the liberation forest. The same year they started the A liberation forest union. The union bylaws included the responsibility and authority over the A liberation forest.

The primary objective of the liberation forest was to conduct proper management and care, increase the welfare and living standards of the union members, and increase awareness of the possibilities of liberation. Furthermore, the property rights include communal ownership by the residents of A, who would participate actively in the mountain and forest liberation struggle and correctly understand the objectives and requests thereof. The conditions of ownership included the intention of permanent residence in A, at least 2 years of humble participation in the Buraku liberation movement, and regular payment of dues as decided by general assembly.

Now, in 2008, though there have been slight amendments, A Liberation Forest is managed by residents who live in A and actively participate in the Buraku liberation movement. Several times a year, they go into the mountains and clear underbrush and dead branches. Occasionally some residents, typically those who fight against the hardship that has accompanied the reduction in Dowa support or those who do not bear the burden of housework, call for converting the forest into an industrial waste facility or a cremation center. The historical depth of the A Buraku liberation movement, as well as its practical hegemony will not allow for such a thing; however, there is no assurance that those voices are not fading. The introduction, “Everyone’s Request,” of the publication “Sparkling Life” (founding issue), which I mentioned above, states the following:

Let us stop selling away the hearts of villagers for t he purpose of making people inhumane. The horror of discrimination is manifest not only in the figure of those who kill themselves rather than face discrimination. It is also something that without the slightest resistance cleaves to one's body in daily activities, and lives in perspectives, mindsets, and values that live only in that world. There are daily activities, and lives in perspectives, mindsets, and values that live only in that world. There are more and more people then who thing nothing of their district, nothing of jobs, education, or each other, who have their hopes for life stolen from them. The inheritance we receive from our elders, who have lived this far across a great accumulation of hardship, with this becomes smaller.

So far, I have traced the history and the practices of the A area. I have introduced the history of how a voice rose up from the lives of women to become the voice of the community and transform into a group movement, and how children who were raised in the struggle for water inherited the belief that anything is possible if you are willing to work for it. These children, who learned from the accumulated hardships of their elders, have grown up to be the leaders of the Buraku liberation movement in the 1980s, and they have transformed the definition of poverty from a simple economic and material index to a belief that “people are not poor because they lack things, they are poor because the have lost their spirits.” In 1987, as the reconstruction of the River of B continued, there was also temporary reconstruction of public housing. The slogan of Kameoka city was “Streets of Green,” and they brought up the following issue: “We live within nature. However, our municipal government is covering that with concrete. Is this what we want? We are invested in a community development that fosters a ‘welcoming village in which one greeting on the street is met with another.’” This is a community in which a sustainable district environment provides the foundation for the social relations that comprise a village, the natural environment, the mutual relationship between residents and district, and to those who come and go through the community. This is one part of A’s attempt, here in 2008, to create a sustainable community. Poverty will increase as the global environment continues to suffer. As it becomes more difficult to secure safe food, the NPO’s of the A district are attempting to establish a network that will allow for circulation of farming goods through the district. How were the leaders of the A district raised to inherit and carry out this mindset? They had behind them a movement in A devoted to district education. In a separate paper, I will present more about this district and share education that the A district has inherited and developed.

The practices of people in Buraku communities are born of the quotidian lives of living people who come from specific land. It has been pointed out that in recent years, the development of a sustainable Buraku liberation movement is tied to increased awareness of environmental issues. However, the history and the composition of the Buraku liberation movement are different according to each Buraku community. The fact that a Buraku liberation movement such as A’s, born of a deep respect for life engraved in the hearts and minds of its people through the medium of water, can carry on its practice of environmental management even today, emphasizes the fact that other Buraku communities do not have the means to carry out sustainable practices. Moreover, it cannot ever be forgotten that solidarity of urban Buraku communities and the organizations, led by Buraku people, that develop the liberation movement have had their land taken from them without their accord, and have seen their land transform from fertile to barren soil.

An Ending to Begin

When we discuss “Changes in Buraku Identity,” the first things to be listed out are the flow of people in and out of Buraku communities, intermarriage, and changes due to increasing global interdependencies, and the decrease in the importance of Buraku communities is frequently mentioned. However, living people live lives of change, in step with social changes that are not limited to Buraku communities alone. The environmental management and practices of the Buraku liberation movement of the A area instead use those changes as a lever; the people who live in that Buraku community and the people who pass through it have been raised together on a foundation of deepening thoughts about the area’s environment.

I hope that from this point on, the approach of academic research to “Buraku Identity” will recognize the constraints of a one-sided image of the Buraku liberation movement, Burakumin, and Buraku communities, and begin a new process of subject formation. Also, I ask that, in order to ensure the autonomous rights of the people who comprise these communities, and to ensure their empowerment process, these people take back their real name, and establish a place for their daily practices as the basis for a new theory of liberation, in order to continue and pass on their activities.

Works Cited

See Japanese version.