The semantics of Articles 10 and 14

This is the first word to appear in the 1947 Constitution. It is also the most specific reference to people who are regarded as part of Japan's sovereign nation as defined by possession of nationality.

The term appears eight times in the 1947 Constitution.

日本国民
Preamble (3) [we] the Japanese people
Article 1 (2) [the unity of, the will of] the people
Article 9 (1) the Japanese people
Article 10 (1) a Japanese national
Article 97 (1) the people of Japan

The term 我等日本国人民 was originally used to translate "We, the Japanese people" in the preamble of the 13 February 1946 GHQ draft. 日本国ノ人民 reflected "the people of Japan" (Articles 9 and 10) and 日本人 "Japanese" (Article 12) in the Japanese translation of the GHQ draft. Throughout the draft, 人民 was the usual translation of "people"in the most general sense.

By the 2 March draft, 国民 had replaced both 日本国ノ人民 and 日本人, and by the 6 March 1946 draft 人民 had disappeared and 我等日本国人民 had become simply 日本国民.

The two graphs of this compound resonate with and complement one another semantically. 人 (jin, nin, hito) generally represents a "person" as a member of the human species, whereas 民 (min, tami) is more likely associated with a collectivity of "people" affiliated with a population, which could be a of a state or province, or of a tribe, nation, or race.

As suffixes, though, the two graphs are used very differently in Japanese.

民 (-min) as suffix

民 (-min) is used as suffix in Japanese legal terminology for indicating civil affiliation with a Japanese polity, beginning with Japan itself (国民 kokumin), but also its prefectures (都民 tomin、道民 domin、府民 fumin、県民 kenmin) and municipalities (区民 kumin、市民 shimin、町民 chomin、村民 sonmin).

It is also the most productive suffix for expressing affiliation with a community or cohort of people who share some circumstantial trait or condition -- 流民 (ryumin, drifters), 遊牧民 (yubokumin, nomads), 農民 (nomin, farmers), 難民 (nanmin, refugees), 移民 (imin, migrants), 居民 (kyomin, residents of a building), 住民 (jumin, residents of a community), 島民 (tomin, islanders) -- ad infinitum.

人 (-jin) as suffix

Whereas 人 (-jin) is more more likely to suggest a subspecies of humans. Hence while 日本国民 is legally defined in terms of civil or raceless nationality, 日本人 (Nihonjin, Japanese) is socially apt to exclude Ainu, Okinawans, and others of non-Yamato origin. And whereas 沖縄県民 (Okinawa-kenmin) are affiliates of Okinawa prefecture by virtue of their legal status, 沖縄人 (Uchinanchu in Okinawan, Okinawajin in Yamato) are "Okinawans" as a ethnoracial entity. If you want express pride in being connected with Hiroshima as a city, you call yourself 広島人 (Hiroshimajin). If you want to talk about survivors of the city's atomic bombing or you call them ヒロシマ人 (Hiroshimajin) -- another story.

人民 as term in East Asia

As stated under 日本国民 above, 人民 (jinmin) was used to express "people" in the Japanese translation of the 13 February 1946 GHQ draft. It was quickly replaced by 国民 (kokumin), because 国民 made more sense as a democratization of 臣民 (shinmin).

The term 人民 has been used in East Asia to mean "the people" of a country, or "the peoples" of two or more countries, since at least the 19th century. The term is used in the constitutions of both the Republic of China (ROC) and the People's Republic of China (PRC).

Both prewar and postwar ROC constitutions have a chapter called 人民之權利義務 (Rights and duties of the people). The people of ROC are also called 国民 or "nationals" -- a term reflected in the name of the Nationalist Party (国民党).

人民 has been the principle term for "people" as nationals of PRC in all of its constitutions. 国民 has come to have very limited use in PRC's constitutions.

Literally people or affiliates of the public. This term was used in an article in the rights and duties chapter of the 24 February 1946 Socialist Party proposal, apparently as a synonym of 国民 (kokumin).

Hirohito, in his 1 January 1946 Imperial Rescript, in which he denounced the notion of an emperor being a living god, used the expression 公民生活 (kōmin seikatsu) meaning "citizens' lives" or "lives of citizens / citizenry".

See Imperial Rescript denying divinity.

As pointed out above under 日本国民, the term 日本人 appeared once in the Japanese translation of the 13 February 1946 GHQ draft constitution and did not appear in later versions. While it has been the most common term for Japanese, it lacked the weight of formality required in legal usage -- somewhat in the same way that "American" lacks legal credibility as a reference to nationals of the United States (though stylebook rules on the use of "American" are more complicated).

日本人 (Nihonjin, Nipponjin) was widely used in early Meiji edicts to refer to Japanese, as it was in the 1873 Great Council of State Proclamation No. 103 permitting marriages with aliens and allowing alien spouses to become Japanese. The 1890 Meiji Constitution referred to Japanese simply 臣民 (shinmin) and 日本臣民 (Nippon shinmin).

The 1899 Nationality law uses only 日本人. The 1947 Constitution uses only 日本国民 (Nihon kokumin) and 国民 (kokumin), and the 1950 Nationality Law uses only 日本国民.

While 日本人 does have some currency in Japanese law today, practically all legal matters people affiliated with the nation of Japan are referred to as 日本国民 or 国民.

"nanbito" -- an assimilated form of "nanihito" -- is legalese for "everyone" and "no one". All nineteen appearances in the 1947 Constitution, whether in positive or negative statements, are followed by も (mo).

All appearances but one are in Chapter III (Articles 10-40).

The Japanese translation of the GHQ draft had 何人モ (nanbito mo). March drafts had 何人ト雖モ (nanihito to iedomo), a stiffer form that was colloquialized in the 17 April draft as 何人も (nanbito mo) -- which came full circle back to the translation of the GHQ draft.

Memoranda left by participants in the give and take over the language of the early drafts shows that there was considerable controversy of the term "natural person".

Apparently GHQ intended the term to mean all persons, regardless of their nationality (i.e., legal status), as this is the direction the wording took when 自然人 became just 人 (hito). In the end, the topical subject of what became Article 14 was nationalized as 国民 (kokumin).

"Natural person" makes no obvious sense in English.

Random House Unabridged Dictionary gives the following definition under "person" (Second Edition, 1987).

11. Law. a human being (natural person) or a group of human beings, a corporation, a partnership, an estate, or other legal entity (artificial person or juristic person) recognized by law as having rights and duties.

Kōjien gives the following definitions of 自然人 (5th edition, 1998, translations mine).

As stated above, 人 (hito) briefly replaced 自然人 (shizenzin) as the topical subject of what became Article 14 -- here, too, as a term that GHQ insisted should mean "natural persons". This was later nationalized as 国民 (kokumin) -- which is very much a 法人 (hojin, juristic person).

The 1947 Consitution makes a few references to "human" and "humankind" as a species apart from law.

Preamble, Article 97 人類 mankind, man (2)
Preamble 人間 human [relationships] (1)

It also makes some references to "human rights" and to people as "individuals".

Article 11, 97 人権 [fundamental] human rights (3)
Article 13, 24 個人 individual(s) (2)

The Japanese version of the 13 February GHQ draft had 差別的待遇 (sabetsu-teki taigu) or "discriminatory treatment" for "discrimination" in the GHQ draft. This became just 差別 in the 28 February draft.

The constitution states that the people shall not be discriminated in political, economic, and social "relations" because of the listed traits. This statement is made in addition to the statement that all the people are equal under the law. Presumably "relations" includes not only public relations sanctioned by law, but private relations beyond the sanction of law.

Though in the GHQ draft and its Japanese translation, race was dropped from the 28 February Cabinet draft but immediately restored in the 1 March draft, after which it remained unchanged.

GHG's insistance on the inclusion of "race" must have puzzled Japanese lawmakers, for Japan's laws had been raceless. That is to say, they had never differentiated race, or otherwise made race a cause for discriminatory treatment.

Creed, also missing from the 28 February draft, also reappeared in the 1 March draft and remained unchanged.

The intent here was to reinforce the guarantee of freedom of religion" (信教の自由 shinkyō no jiyū) in what became Article 20.

The 28 February draft, following the GHQ draft, included 性別 (sex) after 門閥 (lineage) and (birth).性別.

The guarantee of sexual equality in Article 14 reinforced the provisions of equality in marriage and spousal relations in Article 24. It also provided the authority for revising the Civil Code and other laws to eliminate sexual discrimination.

社会的身分 was the translation of "social status" in the 13 February GHQ draft. It was dropped from the 28 February Cabinet draft then restored as 社会上ノ身分 (shakai-jo no mibun) in the 1 March draft. It became 社会的地位 in the 6 March draft and again 社会的身分 in the 5 April draft, after which it remained unchanged.

門地 appeared in the 6 March Cabinet draft, replacing 門閥 in earlier drafts, and remained unchanged. Both terms generally mean one's social position or character based on family background, and reflect "caste" and "clan" in earlier GHQ drafts and what had become, and remained, "family origin" by 6 March.

地位 (chii, "position") briefly replaced 身分 (mibun, "status") in the 6 March draft.

身分 had been, and continues to be, the standard legal term for status. It is most familiar in the expression 身分証明書 (mibun shōmeisho) or "document certifying status" -- in other words, "indent1ification certificate / card".

身分 includes all manner of attributes engendered by legal status. At issue at the time the constitution was being drafted was social differentiation based on attributes like sex and sibling status (gender and birth order), marital status (never married, married, divorced, widowed), nature of relationship within one's family (natural, adoptive, in-law), and other attributes defined by family law.

In Japanese law, a change of status that affects a family register, including marriage and divorce, but also acquisition or loss of nationality, is called a 身分行為 (mibun kōi) or "status action".

Presumably "social status" is broader than "legal status" and includes attributes that are not sanctioned by law but are ascribed by conventions of social predudice regarding caste or class, even race or ethnicity.

Regarding at legally sanctioned status attributes, the Civil Code was being slated for heavy revision in order to eliminate status discrimination within family law.

特別身分 was used in the 24 February 1946 Socialist Party proposal. What were the socialists thinking?

Possibly "special" referred to a number of real and imaginary traits that could be ascribed to people for the purpose of differentiating status. Most likely it alluded to 特殊部落民 (tokushu burakumin, "special burakumin") -- as descendants of historical outcastes liberated in 1871 were then still called by reincarnated activists. Today this is considered a discriminatory expression.

On 19 February 1946, Matsumoto Jiichiro (松本治一郎 1887-1966), a seasoned buraku liberationist, helped found the 部落解放全国委員会 (Buraku Kaihō Zenkoku Iinkai) or Buraku Liberation National Committee (BLNC) to rejuvenate the 全国水平社 (Zenkoku Suiheisha) or National Levellers Association (NLA) movement which had lost momentum during the anti-socialist fanaticism of the 1930s and disbanded in 1942.

Matusmoto had been a member of parliment since 1936 and helped form the new Socialist Party in November 1945. In April 1947 he was elected to the new House of Councillors, which was seated when the new constitution came into effect in May 1947.

BLNC became the 部落解放同盟 (Buraku Kaiho Domei) or Buraku Liberation League (BLL) in 1955. Though originally based in Osaka, still the center of many of its operations, BLL has its headquarters in the Matusumoto Jiichiro Building in Tokyo.

門閥 was used in all Japanese drafts from 28 February, replacing 階級 in the Japanese translation of the 13 February GHQ draft, until replaced by 門地 in the 6 March draft.

Theses changes need to be considered with other wording changes.

Arguably there is some overlap between all these terms, which have a collective semantic range of birth, lineage, pedigree, descent, family origin, caste, clan, and class, position, status, standing.

The elements of 門地 and 門閥 are semantically clear.

地 (chi) is productive as a suffix in many terms in which it means "background" or "ground" on which a pattern appears. Sino-Japanese 門地 would be 家柄 (iegara) in Yamato -- a softer term for "family character" (cf. 人柄 hitogara, 国柄 kunigara).

閥 (batsu) is productive in terms related to religious sects, academic cliques, and political and other factions. Once a term for a large family conglomerate in Japan, the term "zaibatsu" is gobally used to mean a corporate or financial group or combine .

出生 appeared in the 28 Februray Cabinet draft with 門閥. It had appeared in the earlier Constitution Investigation Association proposal with 身分.

The nuances of 出生 (birth) are arguably too biological, whereas terms like 門閥 (family position) would include non-biological as well as biological aspects of family origin.

If ever a translation was contrived as a political expediency, it was 国籍起源 as an expression to represent in Japanese what GHQ had called "national origin" in English.

The expression "national origin" can imply many things, such as "country from which one comes (出身国 shusshin koku) and "country in which one was born" (出生国 shusseikoku). It can also mean just "nationality (国籍 kokuseki). And is very popular as an expression for racioethnic ancestry unrelated to one's country of birth, immigrant origin, or nationality.

In any case, 国籍起源 (kokuseki kigen) is not a meaningful translation of "national origin" in Japanese -- and Japanese lawmakers had good reason to get rid of both expressions.

GHQ was particularly enamored with the term "national origin" -- as common as it is in American legalese and vernacular, where it is a cause for both legal and social discrimination. Japan was in a good position to understand how deeply racialist the term was in reference to "Orientals" in the United States ineligble to naturalize, and "Orientals" outside the United States excluded from immigration quotas, both because of their "national origin" -- i.e., their putative "Oriental" race.

Short history of "national origin" in constitution drafts

Here is happily short, almost comical history of "national origin" in drafts of the 1947 Constitution.

The elimination of "national origin" and "nationality"

The 28 February draft, in the process of nationalizing Article 13, dropped 国籍起源 from the article and added 国籍 to Article 16, which dealt with non-nationals. This reflected the desire of Japanese lawmakers to use "nationality" (a objective and raceless legal term) in lieu of "national origin" (which they viewed as a subjective term with racial nuances).

The 5 March draft subsumed Article 16, which specifically guaranteed equal protection under the law to aliens, into Article 13, by adding 国籍 to its list of traits that were not to engender discrimition in political, economic, and social relations.

Nationality was dropped from the 6 March draft, and by April, during the process of colloquialization, Article 13 was again nationalized.

階級 was used in the 11 November 1946 Communist Party proposal to mean "class", and in the Japanese translation of the 13 February GHQ draft to translate "caste".

The changes seen on the edited copy of the 13 February draft are most closely reflected in the language of the 6 March draft.

The drafters of the constitution -- including the GHQ contributors -- had little interest in "class" as a social metaphor. Whereas "class" a totally subjective notion, "nationality" was a legal status that no longer made sense in a provision concerning nationals.

民族 never appeared in any government draft between February 1946 and the adoption of the 1947 Constitution in November 1946.

民族 most notably appeared in the following proposals.

The 26 December 1945 proposal, by a private group of scholars, impressed GQH because it called for popular sovereignty while preserving the emperor as a ceremonial head of state. The proposal's provisions concerning "discrimination on account of racioethnicity or race" and the cooperation of nationals "with all racioethnic groups" were much less attractive.