See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264486971

The Social Construction of Race and Minorities in Japan

Article  in  Sociology Compass · February 2013

DOI: 10.1111/soc4.12013

CITATIONS READS

25 8,059

1 author:

Jane H. Yamashiro
Mills College
9 PUBLICATIONS   83 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ancestral homeland migration View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jane H. Yamashiro on 18 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Sociology Compass 7/2 (2013): 147–161, 10.1111/soc4.12013

The Social Construction of Race and Minorities in Japan

Jane H. Yamashiro*
University of Southern California

Abstract
This article provides an overview of the state of the field of racial and other minorities in Japan –
a field that has developed in English mostly since the 1990s. The construction of race in Japan
conflates race, ethnicity, language, culture, class, and citizenship. As a result, the majority ‘‘Japa-
nese’’ are constructed against ‘‘foreigners,’’ both categories implying the aforementioned character-
istics. Minorities in Japan lack some or all of the aforementioned traits: most are seen as racially
different from Japanese but some are marginalized in other ways that support hierarchical social
organization. After reviewing scholarship that analyzes the meaning of race in Japan, I briefly
describe the major minority groups: Ainu, Okinawans, Burakumin, ethnic Koreans, foreign work-
ers, Japanese Brazilians and mixed race Japanese.

Introduction
When thinking about nations that claim racial homogeneity, Japan may be one of the
first countries that come to mind. Since the 1970s, when the myth of Japanese homoge-
neity and uniqueness reached its peak (Yoshino 1992), the hegemonic image of Japanese
society outside (and arguably inside) of Japan, has been of an ethnically, culturally, and
linguistically homogeneous place. While Japan may be more homogeneous relative to
places such as the United States, this does not mean that Japan lacks racial or cultural
diversity. Rather, minority populations have existed in Japan for centuries and continue
to be studied by scholars from a variety of disciplines around the world. Minorities in
Japan continue to struggle for social inclusion and political and economic equality. How
these struggles play out, however, differs greatly depending on how they have been con-
structed as minorities, what rights they have been denied, and how they have been mar-
ginalized.
The majority of academic work in English critically analyzing the construction of racial
homogeneity and minorities in Japan has been published since the 1990s. Continued pub-
lications in the form of edited volumes demonstrate interest in research and teaching in
this area; for those new to the study of Japan, these resources provide samplings of work
on minorities in Japan (Weiner 1997, 2009); race, ethnicity, and migration in Japan
(Douglass and Roberts 2003; Weiner 2004), and Japanese culture and society, including
discussions of minorities and diversity in Japan (Bestor et al. 2011; Robertson 2008). This
academic position, that Japan is not homogeneous, has become a major discourse in the
study of Japan and can also contribute to the global and comparative study of race and
ethnicity.
This article will present an overview of the literature in English on racial and other
minorities in Japan. In Japan, the concept of Japaneseness includes ideas of race but also
conflates them with other characteristics, such as culture, citizenship, and language.
Before reviewing the examination of particular groups, I will first discuss the social

ª 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

148 Social Construction of Race and Minorities in Japan

construction of race in Japan, and how it has overlapped with the construction of
Japaneseness. The particular history of Japan has led to racial meanings that are in some
ways similar to places such as the United States, but in other ways are significantly differ-
ent. In addition to racial minorities, there are minorities in Japan that have been con-
structed as ‘‘non-Japanese’’ or as ‘‘marginal Japanese.’’ While they may be seen as racially
Japanese, they are minorities due to other traits that exclude them from being grouped as
similar to majority Japanese.

Race in Japan
The introduction of the western concept of race1 and its inclusion in mainstream Japanese
thinking is usually traced back to the late 19th century when Yukichi Fukuzawa pub-
lished Account of the Countries of the World (Sekai Kunizukushi) in 1869. Fukuzawa
intended the book for use as a Japanese geography textbook and depicted Europeans as
white, Asians as ‘‘slightly yellow,’’ Africans as black, Pacific Islanders as brown, and peo-
ple in the ‘‘mountains of America’’ as red. Subsequent conceptions of race in Japan paral-
leled western notions of the subcategorizability of the human race, also including Social
Darwinist ideas about different races representing different stages of civilization (Morris-
Suzuki 1998, 85–6). John Dower has pointed out that ‘‘the half century or more during
which the Japanese initially turned to the West for education coincided almost exactly
with the period when scientific racism dominated the natural and social sciences in Eur-
ope and the United States’’ (Dower 1986, 204).
The construction of Japanese as a race developed within larger contexts of imperialism
and nation-building in the late 19th century. As Japan was modernizing in the late 1800s
and early 1900s, it was looking to western nations as models that were more highly
industrialized and had more powerful militaries. Europeans and Americans, in particular,
had developed nation-states that had become empires. Japanese were interpreted by wes-
tern powers as part of the larger ‘Asiatic’ race, which was lower on the hierarchy of race,
modernization and civilization. In their attempts to emulate the western powers by also
becoming imperial states, Japanese intellectuals asserted the existence of a distinct ‘Japa-
nese’ race. In doing so, they also asserted their superiority over groups such as the indige-
nous Ainu and Okinawans (Siddle 2011, 151) as well as other Asians as a way to position
themselves higher in the developmental racial hierarchy. Perceiving the human popula-
tion to be comprised of subgroups of biologically different races helped to legitimize
imperial conquests and global inequalities that ensued. So the construction of Japanese as
a race in the 19th century (and Japan’s eventual development of empire) was within this
larger context of their process of adopting western views associated with modernity (Sid-
dle 1996, 2011).2
As a result of this negotiated racial categorization, Japan has occupied an ambiguous
position between ‘‘the west’’ and ‘‘Asia’’ (Oguma 1998, 7–8). On the one hand, Japan
wanted to identify with western imperial powers and emulate their path to moderniza-
tion, following the paradigm of ‘‘the west = civilized = white people = rulers.’’ But
implicit in this discourse is the corresponding notion that ‘‘Asia = barbarians = colored
people = ruled’’ (Oguma 1998, 7–8). While Japanese leaders wanted to compete in the
modern world along with western nations that were taking colonies where they could,
there was also a fear that if Japan did not become a colonizer itself, it could possibly
become one of the colonized.
Japanese continue to locate themselves racially in two ways: (1) as part of a larger
‘‘Asian’’ race, distinct from (White) ‘‘westerners’’ and other races, and (2) as the

ª 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Sociology Compass 7/2 (2013): 147–161, 10.1111/soc4.12013
 Social Construction of Race and Minorities in Japan 149

‘‘Japanese’’ race, distinct from other races in Asia, as well as (White) ‘‘westerners’’ and
other races (Siddle 1996, 2011; Sugimoto 2010). The construction of Japanese as Asians
tends to occur when juxtaposing ‘‘Asia’’ against ‘‘the West’’ in international economic or
political contexts. In this configuration, Japanese are grouped together with other people
in the geographic area known as Asia. Domestically within Japanese society, the construc-
tion of Japanese as its own race is more common, as the focus is on the majority Japanese
juxtaposed against people who are indigenous (such as Ainu), or migrants (such as resi-
dent Koreans, Chinese, or more recent foreign workers). In this perspective, Japanese are
distinct from other Asians; other Asians are seen as different races (the Japanese race ver-
sus the Chinese race, the Korean race, etc.).
Japanese national identity has been constructed as both multiracial and monoracial,
fluctuating over time. Most notably, during the period of the Japanese Empire (from the
late 19th to the mid-20th centuries), the Japanese government adopted assimilationist pol-
icies as a strategy for integrating the various nations it colonized. People in Okinawa,
China, Taiwan, Korea, and the Pacific Islands were forced to speak Japanese and become
‘good Japanese citizens’. The dominant discourse of Japaneseness was one of Japan as a
‘‘mixed nation’’ united as Japanese citizens (Oguma 2002). It was after the dissolution of
the Japanese Empire, especially since the 1970s that the myth of Japanese homogeneity
has become more dominant in shaping Japanese national identity (see Yoshino 1992).
Japanese is both a racial and an ethnic category in Japan. In contrast to the US conti-
nent where it is predominantly an ethnic category that the group itself uses to assert an
identity different from others, in Japan this designation is acknowledged and utilized by
mainstream society and has normative connotations. That is, as the majority group in
Japan, Japanese is an unmarked category. Foreigners are the marked, minority group.
Millie Creighton (1997, 212) summarizes, ‘‘Japaneseness is constructed as normative, in
contrast to foreigners who represent universal ‘Otherness’.’’
In Japan, the terms minzoku and jinshu both overlap with the English concepts of
race and ethnicity. Minzoku is often translated as ‘‘ethnic group’’ but actually conflates
and includes ideas of race and nation, as well (Morris-Suzuki 1998). In other words,
the meaning shifts according to the context; sometimes it refers to ideas of culture and
ancestry, while other times it implies the hierarchical ordering of groups of people.
The term jinshu is more commonly translated as race, and tends to refer to the non-
Japanese races, or to the idea of race that has been imported to Japan by sociologists
and scientists (see Minamikawa 2011). The difference between the English concepts of
race and ethnicity are that ethnicity implies claims to shared ancestry, shared culture,
and shared history (Cornell and Hartmann 2007) (not necessarily implying hierarchical
relations), while race acknowledges a system of inequality based on racial categories
assumed to be reflective of biological differences (Omi and Winant 1994). Minzoku and
jinshu do not easily translate or correlate to the English-based concepts of ethnicity and
race.
The Japanese government does not collect demographic information on race and eth-
nicity. The government does keep track of people by citizenship, so data on foreign resi-
dents are readily available (see Table 1). However, as discussed below, there are a
number of different kinds of minorities in Japan, many of whom are Japanese citizens.
Identifying minority groups in Japan and understanding on what characteristics their
minority status is predicated upon illuminates the structure of Japanese society. To under-
stand the social construction of ‘‘race’’ in Japan, it is necessary to understand how ‘‘Japa-
neseness,’’ more generally, has been constructed to incorporate not only notions of race,
but factors such as language, culture, and citizenship, as well.

ª 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Sociology Compass 7/2 (2013): 147–161, 10.1111/soc4.12013
150 Social Construction of Race and Minorities in Japan

Table 1. Registered foreigners by nationality (2009)

Total 2,186,121

China 680,518
Korea 578,495
Brazil 267,456
Philippines 211,716
Peru 57,464
U.S.A. 52,149
Thailand 42,686
Viet Nam 41,000
Indonesia 25,546
India 22,858
United Kingdom 16,597
Bangladesh 11,162
Canada 10,652
Pakistan 10,295
Australia 10,265
France 9,193
Sri Lanka 8,973
Malaysia 8,344
Russia 7,814
Germany 6,006
Iran 5,018
Argentina 3,484
New Zealand 3,360
Nigeria 2,676
Italy 2,668
Cambodia 2,651
Singapore 2,560
Mexico 1,995
Ghana 1,936
Spain 1,892
Egypt 1,850
Sweden 1,600
Non-nationality 1,397
Netherlands 1,128
Switzerland 1,100
Ireland 1,059
Poland 990
Belgium 685
Finland 616
Austria 560
Denmark 557
Portugal 446
Norway 410

Source: Director-General for Policy Planning (Statistical Standards) & Statistical Research and Training
Institute, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, 2012.

Japaneseness and foreignness in Japan: Race, ethnicity, citizenship, language,

culture
Academic work that critically analyzes Japaneseness has pointed out how Japaneseness
conflates notions of race, language, citizenship, and culture (Fukuoka 2000; Sugimoto

ª 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Sociology Compass 7/2 (2013): 147–161, 10.1111/soc4.12013
 Social Construction of Race and Minorities in Japan 151

2010; Weiner 1997; Yoshino 1992). People of Japanese ancestry are assumed to be
members of the ‘Japanese race’ (with ‘Japanese blood’), Japanese citizens, fluent speakers
of Japanese, and culturally knowledgeable members of Japanese society. In contrast, ‘for-
eigners’ are assumed to be foreign nationals not of Japanese ancestry, unable to communi-
cate fluently in Japanese, and unknowledgeable about Japanese culture and society.
Sugimoto has pointed to various characteristics that define Japaneseness: nationality,
ancestry, language competence, birthplace, current residence, level of cultural literacy,
and subjective identity (Sugimoto 2010, 193). He notes that based on these criteria, one
could be inclusivist and argue that anyone who has any of these traits should be consid-
ered Japanese, or one could be exclusivist and argue that only someone who doesn’t have
all of these traits should not be considered Japanese (Sugimoto 2010).
Japaneseness also conflates race and ethnicity with notions of the state and nation in
contemporary Japan (Lie 2001; Siddle 2011). In other words, Japanese citizenship is
racialized in Japan. Legal citizenship in Japan is based on the principle of jus sanguinis
(Kashiwazaki 1998). That is, it is passed on through parents and is not a birthright. So
even if one is born and raised in Japan, that does not make one a Japanese citizen. To
become a Japanese citizen, one must have at least one parent who is a Japanese national,
or must naturalize her or himself.3 Despite the possibility of naturalization, the notion of
Japanese bloodlines symbolizing legal citizenship persists.
While the indigenous populations of Ainu in northern Japan and Okinawans in south-
ern Japan are all considered Japanese citizens, they are seen as culturally and linguistically
distinct from Japanese. Tessa Morris-Suzuki explains how as Japan developed as a modern
nation state, Chinese and European influences shaped its changing relationships with Ainu
and Okinawans. In the early 1600s, the new Japanese elite of the Tokugawa period
adopted a Chinese way of viewing Japan’s place in the world: ‘‘as a series of concentric
circles … in which barbarism [] increases the farther one moves away from the settled
and civilized center’’ (Morris-Suzuki 1998, 15).4 In this view, Ainu and Okinawans were
seen as peripheral and distinct from Japan: their foreignness was emphasized, as it illus-
trated the Japanese domination of others. From the late 1700s, contact with Europeans
gave Japanese a different view of international relations. Instead of multiple degrees of
foreignness, from this period of exposure to European imperialism, Japanese developed a
view of a single, linear frontier distinguishing one nation from another (Morris-Suzuki
1998, 21). Within the boundary of Japan, Ainu and Okinawans became enveloped. These
views certainly shaped the sometimes contradictory views of race in Japan that became
more explicit from the late 1800s.
Japaneseness includes notions of culture and behavior, as well as language ability. To
be considered mainstream Japanese, one would need to ‘‘act Japanese’’ and be aware of
social norms in Japan. To be considered mainstream Japanese, a fluent command of the
Japanese language is also necessary. There are different accents and dialects depending on
the region of the country. So to a certain extent, someone with a Japanese phenotype
and fluent command of the language could ‘‘pass’’ with mildly accented Japanese. How-
ever, as seen in the case of ‘‘returnee’’ Japanese who have been raised partly abroad, a
Japanese citizen who is of Japanese ancestry and has a Japanese name and phenotype
could be perceived as ‘‘odd’’ if their Japanese is not native and they are unfamiliar with
Japanese social norms. It is important to note, however, that these kikokushijo ‘‘returnee’’
Japanese are often marginalized in Japan (e.g. bullied in school as children) but are not
usually considered a distinct minority group. Rather, they are simply perceived to be a
subset of, and differentiated from mainstream Japanese. Most come from more elite or
wealthier backgrounds, as it is due to their parents’ (usually father’s) work that they lived

ª 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Sociology Compass 7/2 (2013): 147–161, 10.1111/soc4.12013
152 Social Construction of Race and Minorities in Japan

abroad while growing up. Likewise, nikkeijin, the descendents of Japanese emigrants who
have ‘‘returned’’ to Japan generations later, are of Japanese ancestry but are not culturally
or socially similar to mainstream Japanese in Japan. As discussed below, Japanese Brazilians
have become a minority population in Japan, due to their large numbers, their linguistic
and cultural differences, and their class position as primarily unskilled workers in Japan.
In what follows, I review work on the major minority groups in Japan. I begin with
the two indigenous populations of Ainu and Okinawans, then move on to Burakumin, a
minority group originally constructed based on class differences. Next I look at Zainichi
Koreans, the largest foreign resident population, then at foreign workers more generally,
and Japanese Brazilians, a group of foreign workers that are distinguished by the ethnic
background that they share with majority Japanese in Japan. I end by looking at mixed
race Japanese, a growing segment of Japanese society, then conclude with final thoughts.

Ainu
The Ainu are an indigenous population that historically inhabited the northernmost part
of the area now known as Japan.5 Most Japanese perceive Ainu to be racially different.6
Historian Richard Siddle has described the Japanese racialization and treatment of Ainu as
an inferior race (Siddle 1997). Ainu language and culture are distinct from Japanese lan-
guage and culture, though most Ainu are now assimilated into Japanese society linguisti-
cally and culturally. Due to the way in which Ainu lands were colonized and continue to
be enveloped by the Japanese state, Ainu are all Japanese citizens.
Mainstream Japanese history has depicted the acquisition of what is currently called
Hokkaido (the northernmost main island) not as ‘colonization,’ but as the ‘development’
(kaitaku) of Japan (Siddle 2009). This perspective depends on the view that Hokkaido
was ‘‘a strategic ‘empty land’ to be settled by immigration and developed along capitalist
lines’’ (Siddle 1997, 23). Indeed, Ainu were deemed a ‘primitive race’, forced to relocate
and in subsequent decades struggled to have their existence acknowledged (Siddle 1997).
From the late 1960s and early 1970s, deeply influenced by radical social movements in
Japan and abroad, there has been a resurgence of Ainu activism. Similar to other indige-
nous rights and cultural nationalist movements, this political activism has been tied to a
reclaiming of cultural heritage. Despite previously denying the existence of minorities in
Japan, in 2008, just before the G8 summit was held in Hokkaido and put Japan in the
global political spotlight, the Japanese government officially recognized Ainu as an indige-
nous population (lewallen 2008).
Historically, Ainu were ethnically and phenotypically different from mainstream Japa-
nese – described as hairier and taller – but more than a century of assimilation policies
and intermarriage with Japanese have made Ainu less physically distinct. As a continued
effect of their geographic and economic displacement, Ainu overall have a lower standard
of living and lower average level of education than the Japanese population as a whole
(Howell 2004). Despite being depicted as ‘‘rural and sedentary,’’ while concentrated in
Hokkaido, large numbers of Ainu also live in Tokyo and other urban centers in Japan
(Cotterill 2011).

Okinawans
Okinawans are another indigenous and colonized population, historically inhabiting the
southernmost part of what is now Japan. They are the second largest minority group with
a population of approximately 1.3 million in Japan (Rabson 2012, 2; Taira 1997, 166).

ª 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Sociology Compass 7/2 (2013): 147–161, 10.1111/soc4.12013
 Social Construction of Race and Minorities in Japan 153

Similar to Ainu, most Okinawans have Japanese citizenship and have assimilated to
Japanese culture, language, and society. Their situation is different from Ainu, however,
because rather than being dispersed and forced to resettle, they have been colonized in
the form of a prefecture; Okinawan people and culture are relegated to the level of pre-
fectural or regional difference, similar to other Japanese prefectures (with dialects and
local foods and customs). This ignores their indigenous differences in language, food, and
culture and masks their previous status as a different ethnic group and independent
nation.
Historically speaking, Okinawans are an indigenous population that has been colonized
by Japan (Lie 2001). What we now know as Okinawa prefecture, previously known as the
Ryuukyuu Kingdom, has a long and tumultuous history (Kerr 2000). In 1879 Ryuukyuu
was annexed as a prefecture, making it ‘‘the first foreign country absorbed by Imperial
Japan’’ (Taira 1997, 143). Okinawans call themselves Uchinanchuu people in the Okinawan
language, and differentiate themselves from the Naichi or Yamatunchuu majority mainland
Japanese. With Japanese rule, the area known as Ryuukyuu was renamed Okinawa.
Similar to the Ainu, in recent decades, Okinawans have strugged to have their ethnic
and cultural difference acknowledged by mainland Japanese. Before Japanese colonization,
Okinawans were clearly a distinct ethnic and national group that had their own language
and culture (see Taira 1997, 142). Japanese colonization and assimilation has meant the
imposition of Japanese language, education, military, and agricultural practices (Allen
2009, 188). Mainstream constructions of Okinawans as similar to Japanese have posed a
challenge to those claiming a differentiated Okinawan identity. Linguistic heritage is one
example; until recognition by UNESCO in 2009, the ‘‘Luchuan (i.e. Ryukyuan ⁄ Okina-
wan)’’ languages of Okinawa were considered to be dialects of Japanese within post-Meiji
discourse (rather than independent languages) (Bairon et al. 2009).
While Okinawa is officially part of Japan, it occupies a marginal place. Okinawa has
been the poorest of Japan’s 47 prefectures since its incorporation in 1879 (Hein and Sel-
den 2003). Moreover, the Okinawan islands were the only part of the Japanese archipel-
ago to experience land battles in World War II. Many scholars believe the extent of the
devastation of the war in Okinawa was exacerbated by the Japanese perception of Oki-
nawa as expendable (Ikeda 2007, 12). Finally, as a result of US Occupation of Okinawa
from 1945 to 1972 (see Allen 2009; Taira 1997), Okinawa continues to carry the burden
of hosting a disproportionate amount of the US military forces stationed in Japan.

Burakumin
Burakumin are a minority group unique to Japan. They are typically described as a caste
group, class, or ‘‘invisible minority’’, since they are no different from majority Japanese in
terms of race, ethnicity, language, culture, religion, or citizenship. While Burakumin are
not perceived to be a different ‘‘race’’ (i.e. there is no ‘‘Buraku race’’ in Japan) in every-
day language, they have been treated like a different race (if race refers to a group with
inheritable traits upon which structural discrimination is based). Burakumin have been
racialized (Brown 2012) and experience racism (if racism is defined as structural discrimi-
nation against a group perceived to be biologically different, i.e. inferior, in ways that
legitimize hierarchical social organization). The basis of the perceived biological differ-
ence, in this case, is impurity, in terms of the constructed notion of cleanliness.
Burakumin are the largest minority group in Japan with an estimated population of
between 1.5 and 3 million. It is difficult to confirm Burakumin numbers, however, since
there are contradictory ways of estimating the population. The Japanese government

ª 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Sociology Compass 7/2 (2013): 147–161, 10.1111/soc4.12013
154 Social Construction of Race and Minorities in Japan

counts them based on residence in an area acknowledged to be a Buraku district, not

including those who migrate out of those areas. Meanwhile, the Buraku Liberation Lea-
gue, the largest Buraku social movement organization, counts the population based on
ancestry regardless of residence (Bondy 2008).
The construction of this group dates back to the Tokugawa Era (1603–1867) when
people in occupations that involved killing and death were deemed ‘‘unclean’’ or ‘‘pol-
luted’’ (e.g. tanners, cobblers, butchers), ‘‘tainting’’ them and making them an outcast
group in Japan (Davis 2000). At that time, two groups – Hinin (literally ‘non-human’)
and Eta (‘filth-abundant’) were constructed below the four-tiered status system of a shi-
nou-kou-shou (warrior-farmer-artisan-merchant) (Davis 2000) and discrimination against
them included residential segregation.7 During the Meiji Era (1868–1912), the status sys-
tem was abolished and the two lowest groups were deemed part of the heimin, or com-
moner class. However, despite the reorganization of social classifications, former status as
part of an outcast group was recorded in the koseki, or official family registry. Over time,
the status labels were taken out of the registries, but as part of the standard information,
permanent residence information persists. This information can associate a household with
an historically Burakumin neigborhood, effectively institutionalizing this stigmatized status
and making it nearly impossible to erase from official family history.
The situation for Burakumin has improved since the 1969 passing of the Law on Spe-
cial Measures for Dowa Projects (SML), which generally included improvements to the
physical environments, educational programs, and grants paid to Burakumin families
(Neary 2009). Along with these improvements, generations later, many of the descen-
dents of people deemed Burakumin have taken on new occupations and moved out of
stigmatized neighborhoods. It is difficult to measure how much discrimination against
Burakumin persists due to their geographic dispersion and passing. Studies of Burakumin
communities (which include non-historically Burakumin residents) report improvements
compared to earlier periods, although residents in historically Burakumin areas continue
to experience discrimination in marriage and employment, and have lower levels of edu-
cational achievement and socioeconomic status relative to other areas in Japan (Neary
2009). In 2002, the SML was not renewed so it is unclear if the situation for Burakumin
will continue to improve without these governmental programs.

Zainichi Koreans
Ethnic Koreans are the second largest foreign resident population in Japan, at almost
600,000 (see Table 1), but most are not migrants. Zainichi, in Japanese, literally means
that the group resides in Japan. Differentiated from more recent migrants from Korea,
Zainichi Koreans have been in Japan for over a century, dating back to Japanese coloni-
zation which encouraged and forced migration to Japan (Ryang 2008). Hence, Zainichi
Koreans may be the third or fourth generation born and raised in Japan, thus unable to
speak anything other than Japanese, not having lived anywhere else. But they are still dif-
ferentiated from mainstream Japanese and experience discrimination in Japan based on
their ethnic background, once it is discovered (Fukuoka and Gill 2000). More recent
Korean migrants are better understood as part of the international migrant population (see
foreign worker section below).
Despite being culturally and socially Japanese, Zainichi Koreans are still clearly distin-
guished as minorities in Japan because of Japan’s citizenship law that is based on jus
sanguinis, or citizenship through lineage. Even if they have been born and raised in Japan,
if their parents were not Japanese citizens, Zainichi Koreans (and Chinese) are not

ª 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Sociology Compass 7/2 (2013): 147–161, 10.1111/soc4.12013
 Social Construction of Race and Minorities in Japan 155

automatically Japanese citizens. Unless they choose to go through the naturalization pro-
cess (which is politically complicated, especially for ethnic Koreans who must choose
between North and South Korea), Zainichi populations are counted within the ‘‘foreign
resident’’ population in Japan. They do have ‘‘special permanent resident’’ status8 which
differentiates them from more recent and temporary foreign nationals. However, it also
distinguishes them from Japanese nationals who are eligible for particular kinds of jobs
and social services. Interestingly, it was through policies established during the Allied
Occupation (1945–1952) led by the United States that Zainichi Koreans were separated
out and registered as foreigners, losing what citizenship rights they had prior to those as
Japanese imperial subjects.9

Foreign workers
Since the 1980s, when the Japanese economy was booming, people from various parts of
the world have been migrating to work in Japan (Douglass and Roberts 2003). ‘‘Foreign
workers’’ or ‘‘migrant workers’’ usually refers specifically to those doing unskilled work.
Most migrants to Japan have been attracted for this type of labor; women tend to work
in the ‘‘entertainment’’, sex worker, and service industries, while men tend to work in
the low-wage 3Ds: dirty, difficult, and dangerous jobs (e.g. construction work). There
are also white-collar workers performing skilled labor in a largely English-speaking west-
ernized transnational upper-class sector of society. But these people are not usually
referred to as ‘‘foreign workers.’’ This newer, postwar migrant population is distinguished
from earlier zainichi Korean and Chinese populations with terms such as ‘‘oldcomer’’ vs.
‘‘newcomer’’ or ‘‘zainichi’’ vs. ‘‘rainichi’’ (Yamamoto 2010).
This category overlaps with other categories. Foreign workers usually refers to foreign
citizens of non-Japanese ethnic backgrounds (The exception is Japanese Brazilians, Japa-
nese Peruvians, and other nikkeijin, or descendents of Japanese emigrants, who are ethni-
cally Japanese. Most are foreign nationals, though some may be dual nationals). This
group implies recent migration, differentiating them from Zainichi Koreans and Chinese
who include some recent migrants but have established histories and communities in
Japan for over a century. Since most members of this group are recent migrants, they
tend not to speak Japanese. They also tend to be from poorer countries, primarily from
other parts of Asia.
Foreign workers are constructed as the typical gaijin (foreigner) who lack any Japanese
characteristics – race, culture, language – but are living in Japan. In reality, many foreign
workers learn Japanese after working there for awhile. They pick up Japanese social man-
nerisms and some even naturalize. But those of non-Japanese ancestry are always consid-
ered foreign in that regard.

Japanese Brazilians (and other ethnic return nikkeijin migrants)

Japanese Brazilians are Brazilian citizens of Japanese ancestry. They are the descendants of
Japanese emigrants from the early 1900s and postwar waves of migration. Most Japanese
Brazilians in Japan are more familiar with Japanese Brazilian culture than with contempo-
rary Japanese culture (and the two are quite different). Japanese Brazilians speak Portu-
guese as their main language; most have very limited Japanese skills, especially those of
the third generation on. Thus, the construction of them as minorities in Japan has, con-
trary to the experiences of Zainichi Koreans, been based on everything about them
except for their ancestry.

ª 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Sociology Compass 7/2 (2013): 147–161, 10.1111/soc4.12013
156 Social Construction of Race and Minorities in Japan

In 1989 ⁄ 1990, the Japanese government revised the Immigration Control and Refugee
Recognition Act to, among other things, establish a new ‘‘long term resident’’ visa that
enabled foreign nationals of Japanese ancestry up to the third generation (proving at least
one grandparent was a Japanese national) to enter Japan legally and reside there for
1–3 years (Yamanaka 2003, 133). The establishment of this visa status came amidst the
coinciding need for unskilled labor in Japan’s rapidly developing economy and the Brazil-
ian economic crisis driving people out of Brazil to look for work in a more stable situa-
tion. Brazil was already home to a thriving ethnic Japanese population. Some Japanese in
Brazil were already attracted to work in Japan, so Japanese politicians thought that later
generation Japanese Brazilians could also be enticed by the possibility of working in their
ancestral homeland.
Japanese Brazilians have tended to work for factories and live in nearby housing com-
plexes, leading to the development of Japanese Brazilian minority communities in indus-
trial areas all over Japan. They are developing communities distinguished by Brazilian
culture and Portuguese-language services and schools (Lesser 2003). As of 2009, Brazilian
citizens are the third largest foreign resident population (Director-General for Policy
Planning (Statistical Standards) & Statistical Research and Training Institute (2010). Dis-
crimination against Japanese Brazilians also includes a class bias, as most Japanese Brazilians
in Japan take on working class jobs (despite having middle-class occupations in Brazil).
As one of the newest minority groups in Japan, much academic research continues to
be conducted on Japanese Brazilians: on their identities and experiences working in facto-
ries (Roth 2002; Tsuda 2003), and on how immigration policy reform reflects Japanese
national identity and a desire to attract ethnic return migrants rather than foreigners gen-
erally (Tsuda 2010; Yamanaka 1993, 2003). In addition to Japanese Brazilians, scholars
have studied other ethnic return migrants (later generation ethnics migrating to their
ancestral homelands) in Japan, including Japanese Peruvians (Takenaka 2010), Japanese
Americans (Yamashiro 2011) and Japanese Argentinians (Higa 2002).

Mixed race Japanese

The mixed race Japanese population in Japan dates back to the earliest encounters
between ‘‘Japanese’’ and ‘‘foreigners.’’ While some early individual mixed race Japanese
histories have been recorded, most research focuses on the significant population that
developed as a result of Japanese and American relations during World War II (1941–
1945) and the Allied Occupation of Japan (1945–1952), and on newer generations result-
ing from contact between Japanese and foreigners since Japan’s postwar globalization and
internationalization. Mixed race Japanese experiences vary greatly depending on the indi-
vidual combination of characteristics: phenotype, knowledge of Japanese language and
culture, citizenship, etc.
Interpretations and categorizations of mixed race Japanese have changed tremendously
over time. While this group was highly stigmatized in the postwar period and mixed race
children were often abandoned by one or both parents, with increasing globalization
since the 1990s, the image of mixed race Japanese has become much more trendy and
‘‘global,’’ implying a higher class status. Previously mixed race children were seen as the
products of US soldiers and Japanese women but now tend to be seen as the products of
Japan’s increasing globalization.
Stephen Murphy-Shigematsu has pointed out how over the years, mixed race Japanese
have been referred to by various terms with different nuances and connotations
(which clearly change with social and political context and depending on the person)

ª 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Sociology Compass 7/2 (2013): 147–161, 10.1111/soc4.12013
 Social Construction of Race and Minorities in Japan 157

(Murphy-Shigematsu 2000). These terms include the more derogatory ainoko used during
the postwar period, the slightly more politically correct konketsuji, and perhaps the most
common term since the 1960s, haafu (half). Perhaps still less common in usage are daburu
(double, implying two wholes rather than two halves), quotah (quarter), and mikkusu
(mixed) (Yamashiro 2008).
The image and treatment of mixed race Japanese differs greatly by what mix – both
national and racial. Because Japaneseness conflates race, ethnicity, language, culture, and
citizenship, one could speak of ‘‘white-Japanese’’ mixes but this would include, say,
‘‘French-Japanese’’ or ‘‘Russian-Japanese’’ mixes which are significantly different. If one
looks foreign (not phenotypically East Asian) in Japan, most Japanese may assume that
one speaks a foreign language. But some mixed race Japanese are born and raised in
Japan, while others have been raised abroad. Different ‘‘racial’’ mixes leading to different
phenotypical features also shape experiences for mixed race ethnic Japanese. A ‘‘white-
Japanese’’ mix tends to be more highly regarded and perceived than, say, a ‘‘black-Japa-
nese’’ mix.

Conclusion
This article has outlined the various kinds of minority groups in Japan and theorized the
different ways in which they have been constructed as minorities. The social construction
of race in Japan has been shaped by its entrance into the modern, imperialist, western-
dominated world in the late 1800s. The notion of race in Japan is intertwined with other
modes of categorization including ethnicity, citizenship, language, and culture. Reviewing
the varied minority groups in Japan and the characteristics upon which their minority sta-
tus has been based reveals the ways in which mainstream Japanese identity has been con-
structed against these traits. The circumstances that have led to the formation of
minorities in Japan also highlights Japan’s history as an empire and reminds us of systems
of stratification that may no longer exist, yet continue to contribute to the marginaliza-
tion of particular groups.
It is also worth noting that many minority populations in Japan have overlapping expe-
riences of discrimination and oppression. For example, geographically there are areas such
as Kotobuki in the Tokyo area where day laborers congregate; these low-wage workers
include foreign workers, and people who are mentally ill and disabled (Roth 2005).
Moreover, recent research on contract workers cleaning up the nuclear mess in Fukushima
have found that Burakumin and day laborers are prevalent (Jobin 2011).
As for future directions in the study of racial and other minorities in Japan, one point
of debate is the future of multiculturalism in Japan and the possibilities for a more inclu-
sive definition of Japaneseness (Siddle 2011). While the population in Japan is certainly
diversifying and a decreasing birthrate and aging population suggest a need for revised
immigration policy, it is difficult to predict how Japaneseness will evolve and take shape
over the next few decades.
Despite continued scholarship on minorities in Japan, they are still largely unrecognized
and unacknowledged within popular understandings of Japan (within the scholarly com-
munity they are well-known). By providing a theoretical discussion of the concept of
race along with brief discussions of individual minority groups in Japan, this article adds
to the voluminous interdisciplinary work on minorities in Japan, providing, in particular,
a sociological discussion of race in Japan. In doing so, it contributes to the development
of sociological theorizing of race and racism in Japan, an area that will be a resource to
scholars of comparative global constructions and experiences of race and racism.

ª 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Sociology Compass 7/2 (2013): 147–161, 10.1111/soc4.12013
158 Social Construction of Race and Minorities in Japan

Acknowledgement
Thank you to Ryoko Yamamoto, Kyle Ikeda, and the anonymous reviewers for their
helpful feedback on earlier versions of this article.

Short Biography
Jane H. Yamashiro is currently a Visiting Scholar at the Center for Japanese Religions
and Culture at the University of Southern California. She holds a B.A. from the Univer-
sity of California, San Diego and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Hawai’i
at Manoa, all in Sociology. Dr. Yamashiro’s research is located at the intersection of
sociology, Asian studies and Asian American studies. Her work has been published in
Ethnic and Racial Studies; AAPI Nexus Journal: Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders
Policy, Practice and Community; and Migrations and Identities. She is completing a book
entitled Negotiating Global Constructions of Race and Ethnicity: Japanese American
Transnational Identity Formation in Tokyo.

Notes
*
Correspondence address: Jane H. Yamashiro, University of Southern California, 5464 ½ Village Green, Los
Angeles, CA 90016, USA. E-mail: jane@alumni.ucsd.edu.

1
Race is defined as social classification that assumes biological differences between racial groups and is used to
legitimize hierarchical social organization. While a view of stratified human subgroups did exist in Japan before the
late 19th century, it was different from the imported idea of race, and the particular mode of classification that came
from western nations.
2
While the concept of ‘‘races’’ among the human species is not indigenous to Japan, when introduced by western
societies, it easily meshed with Japanese notions of hierarchy.
3
Until 1985, citizenship was only recognized patrilineally. Since then, either parent can pass Japanese citizenship
to their children.
4
Morris-Suzuki notes that when Japanese elites adopted this perspective, it was unclear if they also accepted the
original view that China was the center.
5
ann-elise lewallen has pointed out that the Ainu conception of Ainu Mosir as their ancestral homeland does not
easily map onto the area called ‘‘Hokkaido’’ since Ainu have historically lived in areas both north and south of that
island lewallen, ann-elise. 2008. ‘‘Indigenous at last! Ainu Grassroots Organizing and the Indigenous Peoples Sum-
mit in Ainu Mosir.’’ The Asia-Pacific Journal 48.
6
Categorically speaking, Ainu have been constructed against ‘‘Wajin,’’ meaning mainland Japanese people. It is
worth noting that in English both Ainu and Okinawans are constructed against ‘‘mainland Japanese people’’ but in
Japanese the terms used vary: Wajin and Yamatunchuu ⁄ Naichi, respectively.
7
Eta were a ‘‘hereditary group’’ where membership was passed on through descendents, while hinin were a ‘‘non-
hereditary group’’ where membership was not passed on in this way. See Neary, Ian J. 2009. ‘Burakumin in Con-
temporary Japan’. Pp. 59–83 in Japan’s Minorities: The Illusion of Homogeneity, edited by M. Weiner. London and
New York: Routledge.
8
‘‘Special permanent resident’’ status is a special visa status for zainichi populations. The Japanese government cre-
ated it as recognition of their in-between status as foreign nationals but not foreign migrants. This visa offers Zaini-
chi Koreans more privileges than foreign migrants (e.g. longer period of stay).
9
From 1940, an assimilationist policy of the Japanese Empire required Koreans to change their traditional Korean
family registries to the Japanese style and change their names to Japanese names. This meant having only one house-
hold head, under whose last name the entire household would be registered. Previously, in the Korean style,
women kept their maiden names. See Kashiwazaki 2000. ‘‘The Politics of Legal Status: The Equation of Nationality
with Ethnonational Identity.’’ in Koreans in Japan: Critical Voices from the Margin, edited by S. Ryang. London and
New York: Routledge. As part of the Japanese Empire, Koreans were Japanese citizens. Once the war ended in
1945, Koreans in Japan were technically still Japanese nationals ‘‘in the absence of an international arrangement of
their nationality status’’, though in reality their status was ambiguous—. 2000. ‘‘The Politics of Legal Status: The
Equation of Nationality with Ethnonational Identity.’’ in Koreans in Japan: Critical Voices from the Margin, edited by
S. Ryang. London and New York: Routledge. The Occupation Forces became interested in making sure that Japan
and other Asian countries did not become communist. Their intelligence, reinforced by Japanese agency reports,

ª 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Sociology Compass 7/2 (2013): 147–161, 10.1111/soc4.12013
 Social Construction of Race and Minorities in Japan 159

created the perception that Koreans were associated with communism. In addition, conservative Japanese officials
and politicians had an interest in keeping liberal Koreans from becoming a voting bloc. The Alien Registration Act
of 1947 deemed Koreans ‘‘aliens’’ and required registration as such. In 1950, the revised Nationality Law retained
the patrilineal jus sanguinis policy. In 1951, the Immigration Control Order established a system for controlling and
monitoring migration to and from Japan. Although it was not intended to control the Zainichi Korean population,
when the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty ended Allied rule, the immigration control system was applied to Kore-
ans —. 2000. ‘‘The Politics of Legal Status: The Equation of Nationality with Ethnonational Identity.’’ in Koreans
in Japan: Critical Voices from the Margin, edited by S. Ryang. London and New York: Routledge. This combination
of ‘‘American-style immigration control, originally designed for a country with jus soli [birthright citizenship] …
combined with the system of strict jus sanguinis … made it difficult for non-citizen immigrants and residents to
acquire Japanese nationality’’ —. 2000. ‘‘The Politics of Legal Status: The Equation of Nationality with Ethnona-
tional Identity.’’ in Koreans in Japan: Critical Voices from the Margin, edited by S. Ryang. London and New York:
Routledge. Upon discovering that they were not required to provide citizenship option rights, days before the end
of the Occupation, the Japanese government declared that Koreans and Taiwanese would lose Japanese nationality
as a result of the Peace Treaty.

References
Allen, Matthew. 2009. ‘Okinawa, Ambivalence, Identity, and Japan.’ Pp. 188–205 in Japan’s Minorities, edited by
M. Weiner. London and New York: Routledge.
Bairon, Fija, Matthias Brenzinger and Patrick Heinrich. 2009. ‘The Ryukyus and the New, But Endangered, Lan-
guages of Japan.’ The Asia-Pacific Journal 19. Retrieved on 10 August 2012 from: http://www.japanfocus.org/-
Matthias-Brenzinger/3138
Bestor, Victoria Lyon, Theodore C. Bestor and Akiko Yamagata. 2011. Routledge Handbook of Japanese Culture and
Society. London and New York: Routledge.
Bondy, Christopher. 2008. ‘Burakumin.’ Pp. 213–15 in Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society, edited by
R. T. Schaefer, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Brown, Eric S. 2012. ‘Racialization in a ‘Homogenous’ Society? The Case of Buraku People in Japan.’ Asian Eth-
nicity, doi:10.1080/14631369.2012.689556
Cornell, Stephen E. and Douglas Hartmann. 2007. Ethnicity and Race: Making Identities in a Changing World. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, an Imprint of Sage Publication.
Cotterill, Simon. 2011. ‘Documenting Urban Indigeneity: TOKYO Ainu and the 2011 Survey on the Living
Conditions of Ainu Outside Hokkaido.’ The Asia-Pacific Journal 9. Retrieved on 10 August 2012 from: http://
www.japanfocus.org/-Simon-Cotterill/3642
Creighton, Millie. 1997. ‘Soto Others and uchi Others: Imaging Racial Diversity, Imagining Homogeneous Japan.’
Pp. 211–38 in Japan’s Minorities: The Illusion of Homogeneity, edited by, M. Weiner, London and New York:
Routledge.
Davis, John H., Jr. 2000. ‘Blurring the Boundaries of the Buraku(min).’ Pp. 110–21 in Globalization and Social
Change in Contemporary Japan, edited by J. S. Eades, T. Gill and H. Befu. Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press.
Director-General for Policy Planning (Statistical Standards) & Statistical Research and Training Institute. 2010.
‘2-12 Registered Aliens by Nationality and Status of Residence (Permanent Residents, Non-permanent Resi-
dents) (1948–2009).’ vol. Historical Statistics of Japan, edited by Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communica-
tions. Tokyo: Statistics Bureau.
Director-General for Policy Planning (Statistical Standards) & Statistical Research and Training Institute. 2012.
Registered Foreigners by Nationality (1948–2009). edited by Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications.
Tokyo: Statistics Bureau.
Douglass, Mike and Glenda Susan Roberts. 2003. Japan and Global Migration: Foreign Workers and the Advent of a
Multicultural Society. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Dower, John W. 1986. War Without Mercy: Race & Power in the Pacific War. New York: Pantheon.
Fukuoka, Yasunori. 2000. ‘Introduction: ‘Japanese’ and ‘Non-Japanese’.’ Pp. xxxviii, 330 in Lives of young Koreans
in Japan. Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press.
Fukuoka, Yasunori and Tom Gill. 2000. Lives of Young Koreans in Japan. Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press.
Hein, Laura and Mark Selden. 2003. ‘Culture, Power, and Identity in Contemporary Okinawa.’ Pp. 1–35 in Islands
of Discontent: Okinawan Responses to Japanese and American Power, edited by L. Hein and M. Selden. Lanham,
Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
Higa, Marcelo G. 2002. ‘The Emigration of Argentines of Japanese Descent to Japan.’ Pp. 261–78 in New Worlds,
New Lives: Globalization and People of Japanese Descent in the Americas and from Latin America in Japan, edited by
L. R. Hirabayashi, A. Kikumura-Yano and J. A. Hirabayashi. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Howell, David L. 2004. ‘Ethnicity and Culture in Contemporary Japan.’ Pp. 103–18 in Race, Ethnicity and Migration
in Modern Japan, vol. I, edited by M. Weiner. London and New York: Routledge Curzon.

ª 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Sociology Compass 7/2 (2013): 147–161, 10.1111/soc4.12013
160 Social Construction of Race and Minorities in Japan

Ikeda, Kyle. 2007. ‘Unspoken Memory and Vicarious Trauma:The Battle of Okinawa in the Second-generation
Survivor Fiction of Medoruma Shun.’ Ph.D. dissertation Thesis, East Asian Languages and Literatures, University
of Hawaii, Honolulu.
Jobin, Paul. 2011. ‘Dying for TEPCO? Fukushima’s Nuclear Contract Workers.’ The Asia-Pacific Journal 9.
Retrieved on 10 August 2012 from: http://www.japanfocus.org/-Paul-Jobin/3523
Kashiwazaki, Chikako. 1998. ‘Jus Sanguinis in Japan: The Origin of Citizenship in a Comparative Perspective.’
International Journal of Comparative Sociology 39: 278–300.
Kashiwazaki, Chikako. 2000. ‘The Politics of Legal Status: The Equation of Nationality with Ethnonational Iden-
tity.’ Pp. 13–31 in Koreans in Japan: Critical Voices from the Margin, edited by S. Ryang. London and New York:
Routledge.
Kerr, George H. 2000. Okinawa, the History of an Island People. Boston, MA: Tuttle Pub.
Lesser, Jeff. 2003. Searching for Home Abroad: Japanese-Brazilians and Transnationalism. Durham: Duke University
Press.
lewallen, ann-elise. 2008. ‘Indigenous at Last! Ainu Grassroots Organizing and the Indigenous Peoples Summit in
Ainu Mosir.’ The Asia-Pacific Journal 48. Retrieved on 10 August 2012 from: http://www.japanfocus.org/-ann_e-
lise-lewallen/2971
Lie, John. 2001. Multiethnic Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Minamikawa, Fuminori. 2011. ‘Vernacular Representation of Race and Historical Formation of the Ethno-racial
Community of Japanese in Los Angeles.’ in Japanese and Asian Americans: Racializations and Their Resistances,
UCLA.
Morris-Suzuki, Tessa. 1998. Re-inventing Japan: Time, Space, Nation. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.
Murphy-Shigematsu, Stephen. 2000. ‘Identities of Multiethnic People in Japan.’ Pp. 196–216 in Japan and Global
Migration: Foreign Workers and the Advent of a Multicultural Society, edited by M. Douglass and G. S. Roberts. Lon-
don and New York: Routledge.
Neary, Ian J. 2009. ‘Burakumin in Contemporary Japan.’ Pp. 59–83 in Japan’s Minorities: The Illusion of Homogeneity,
edited by M. Weiner. London and New York: Routledge.
Oguma, Eiji. 1998. Nihonjin no Kyoukai [The Boundaries of the Japanese]. Tokyo: Shin’yousha.
Oguma, Eiji. 2002. A Genealogy of ‘Japanese’ Self-images. Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press.
Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. New
York: Routledge.
Rabson, Steve. 2012. The Okinawan Diaspora in Japan: Crossing the Borders Within. Honolulu: University of Hawai*i
Press.
Robertson, Jennifer. 2008. A Companion of the Anthropology of Japan. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Roth, Joshua Hotaka. 2002. Brokered Homeland: Japanese Brazilian Migrants in Japan ⁄ Joshua Hotaka Roth. Ithaca: Cor-
nell University Press.
Roth, Joshua Hotaka. 2005. ‘Political and Cultural Perspectives on Japan’s Insider Minorities.’ Japan Focus.
Retrieved on 10 August 2012 from: http://www.japanfocus.org/-Joshua-Roth/1723
Ryang, Sonia. 2008. ‘Japan’s Ethnic Minority: Koreans.’ Pp. 89–103 in A Companion to the Anthropology of Japan,
edited by J. Robertson. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Siddle, Richard. 1996. ‘‘Race’, Ethnicity and the Ainu.’ Pp. 6–25 in Race, Resistance, and the Ainu of Japan. London
and New York: Routledge.
Siddle, Richard. 1997. ‘The Ainu and the Discourse of ‘Race’.’ Pp. 136–57 in The Construction of Racial Identities in
China and Japan, edited by F. Dikotter. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Siddle, Richard. 2009. ‘The Ainu: Indigenous People of Japan.’ Pp. 21–39 in Japan’s Minorities, edited by M. Weiner.
London and New York: Routledge.
Siddle, Richard. 2011. ‘Race, Ethnicity, and Minorities in Modern Japan.’ Pp. 150–62 in Routledge Handbook of
Japanese Culture and Society, edited by V. L. Bestor, T. C. Bestor and A. Yamagata. London and New York:
Routledge.
Sugimoto, Yoshio. 2010. An Introduction to Japanese society. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Taira, Koji. 1997. ‘Troubled National Identity: The Ryukyuans ⁄ Okinawans.’ Pp. 140–77 in Japan’s Minorities: The
Illusion of Homogeneity, edited by M. Weiner. London and New York: Routledge.
Takenaka, Ayumi. 2010. ‘How Ethnic Minorities Experience Social Mobility in Japan: An Ethnographic Study of
Peruvian Migrants.’ Pp. 221–38 in Social Class in Contemporary Japan, edited by H. Ishida and D. H. Slater. Lon-
don and New York: Routledge.
Tsuda, Takeyuki. 2003. Strangers in the Ethnic Homeland: Japanese Brazilian Return Migration in Transnational Perspec-
tive. New York: Columbia University Press.
Tsuda, Takeyuki. 2010. ‘Ethnic Return Migration and the Nation-State: Encouraging the Diaspora to Return
‘Home’.’ Nations and Nationalism 16: 616–36.
Weiner, Michael. 1997. Japan’s Minorities: The Illusion of Homogeneity. London; New York: Routledge.
Weiner, Michael. 2004. Race, Ethnicity and Migration in Modern Japan. London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon.

ª 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Sociology Compass 7/2 (2013): 147–161, 10.1111/soc4.12013
 Social Construction of Race and Minorities in Japan 161

Weiner, Michael. 2009. Japan’s Minorities: The Illusion of Homogeneity. London; New York: Routledge.
Yamamoto, Ryoko. 2010. ‘Migrants as a Crime Problem: The Construction of Foreign Criminality Discourse in
Contemporary Japan.’ International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 34: 301–30.
Yamanaka, Keiko. 1993. ‘New Immigration Policy and Unskilled Foreign Workers in Japan.’ Pacific Affairs 66:
72–90.
Yamanaka, Keiko. 2003. ‘‘‘I Will Go Home, But When?’’ Labor Migration and Circular Diaspora Formation by
Japanese Brazilians in Japan.’ Pp. 123–52 in Japan and Global Migration: Foreign Workers and the Advent of a Multi-
cultural Society, edited by M. Douglass and G. S. Roberts. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Yamashiro, Jane H. 2008. ‘Hafu.’ Pp. 569–70 in Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society, edited by R. T. Schaefer.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Yamashiro, Jane H. 2011. ‘Racialized National Identity Construction in the Ancestral Homeland: Japanese Ameri-
can Migrants in Japan.’ Ethnic and Racial Studies 34: 1502–21.
Yoshino, Kosaku. 1992. Cultural Nationalism in Contemporary Japan: A Sociological Enquiry. London: Routledge.

ª 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Sociology Compass 7/2 (2013): 147–161, 10.1111/soc4.12013

View publication stats