{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011943539630836048, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0054288816503800215, 'mean_word_length': 5.315068493150685, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Binding Burakumin: Marxist Historiography and the Narration of Difference in Japan

This article examines the way Japanese historians arrived at an increasingly uniform understanding of Buraku history over the course of the twentieth century. It analyses in detail the continuities and changes in pre-war perspectives on Burakumin and the roles renowned historians like Inoue Kiyoshi played in the development of a particular understanding of Buraku history in the early post-war period. This paper argues that Inoue's intervention in a key debate in the late Occupation years was of critical importance in the emergence of the mainstream narrative of Buraku history still widely subscribed to today. 1I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers, Beatrice Trefalt, Curtis Gayle, Simon Avenell and the participants of the 2005 Newcastle Japanese History Workshop for their comments on various versions of this paper.