# data[].attributes.body
This is the type of layout that would be used for the brochure. On the front it will include the name of the Japanese Culture Convention, the name of the company or organisation that organised it, as well as interesting images and photographs of the Convention.

On the inside, it will include general information on the events and additional links of web-sights connecting to the Convention. It may also contain a mini map.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why is it important to create Information Booklets?

# data[].attributes.subject
Why is it important to create Information Booklets?

# data[].attributes.body
The reason for the Convention is to educate Western Families about Japanese Culture, so for those who stay for a short amount of time can take home a booklet containing information that was presented.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why is it important to create brochures? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Why is it important to create brochures? 

# data[].attributes.body
If people visiting the Convention need additional information on the events occurring, brochures would be very useful for that purpose. However only a little more information will be provided as a way to draw them to venture around the Convention.

# data[].attributes.body
Besides web-sights which attract attention online, posters are important to attract attention to the event on the street. They are used to draw in the interests of passing people or anyone who is interested in Japanese and its culture.

# data[].attributes.body
This is the type of layout that would be used for the poster. Something simple, yet containing bold element like colour, text and images to attract and catch the eyes of the viewers or Western Families.

# data[].attributes.body
Designing the posters is very necessary to attract people to the Convention. I choose the colour coordination, the style of which the Japanese symbols or English text are presented and how it will be spaced and layed out on posters, brochure, information booklets, website, ect.

The graphic designer also designs the border for the posters, as well as necessary patterns for the background and selects the images appropriate to present the Convention best on the poster, brochure, information booklets or website.

# data[].attributes.body
Discipline: Graphic Design

# data[].attributes.body
This website showcases a variety of old Japanese folktales. This is a great example of Japanese culture as these stories show history, beliefs, religions, and ways of life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
selected and edited by

D. L. Ashliman
© 1998-2015

1. The Two Frogs.

2. The Mirror of Matsuyama.

3. Visu the Woodsman and the Old Priest.

4. The Adventures of Little Peachling.

5. The Tongue-Cut Sparrow.

6. A Woman and the Bell of Miidera.

7. The Stonecutter.

8. Danzayémon, Chief of the Etas.

9. Links to related sites.

Return to D. L. Ashliman's folktexts , a library of folktales, folklore, fairy tales, and mythology. Once upon a time in the country of Japan there lived two frogs, one of whom made his home in a ditch near the town of Osaka, on the sea coast, while the other dwelt in a clear little stream which ran through the city of Kyoto. At such a great distance apart, they had never even heard of each other; but, funnily enough, the idea came into both their heads at once that they should like to see a little of the world, and the frog who lived at Kyoto wanted to visit Osaka, and the frog who lived at Osaka wished to go to Kyoto, where the great Mikado had his palace.
So one fine morning in the spring they both set out along the road that led from Kyoto to Osaka, one from one end and the other from the other. The journey was more tiring than they expected, for they did not know much about traveling, and halfway between the two towns there arose a mountain which had to be climbed. It took them a long time and a great many hops to reach the top, but there they were at last, and what was the surprise of each to see another frog before him!

They looked at each other for a moment without speaking, and then fell into conversation, explaining the cause of their meeting so far from their homes. It was delightful to find that they both felt the same wish--to learn a little more of their native country--and as there was no sort of hurry they stretched themselves out in a cool, damp place, and agreed that they would have a good rest before they parted to go their ways.

"What a pity we are not bigger," said the Osaka frog; "for then we could see both towns from here, and tell if it is worth our while going on."

"Oh, that is easily managed," returned the Kyoto frog. "We have only got to stand up on our hind legs, and hold onto each other, and then we can each look at the town he is traveling to."

This idea pleased the Osaka frog so much that he at once jumped up and put his front paws on the shoulder of his friend, who had risen also. There they both stood, stretching themselves as high as they could, and holding each other tightly, so that they might not fall down. The Kyoto frog turned his nose towards Osaka, and the Osaka frog turned his nose towards Kyoto; but the foolish things forgot that when they stood up their great eyes lay in the backs of their heads, and that though their noses might point to the places to which they wanted to go, their eyes beheld the places from which they had come.

"Dear me!" cried the Osaka frog, "Kyoto is exactly like Osaka. It is certainly not worth such a long journey. I shall go home!"

"If I had had any idea that Osaka was only a copy of Kyoto I should never have traveled all this way," exclaimed the frog from Kyoto, and as he spoke he took his hands from his friend's shoulders, and they both fell down on the grass. Then they took a polite farewell of each other, and set off for home again, and to the end of their lives they believed that Osaka and Kyoto, which are as different to look at as two towns can be, were as alike as two peas.
In ancient days there lived in a remote part of Japan a man and his wife, and they were blessed with a little girl, who was the pet and idol of her parents. On one occasion the man was called away on business in distant Kyoto. Before he went he told his daughter that if she were good and dutiful to her mother he would bring her back a present she would prize very highly. Then the good man took his departure, mother and daughter watching him go.
At last he returned to his home, and after his wife and child had taken off his large hat and sandals he sat down upon the white mats and opened a bamboo basket, watching the eager gaze of his little child. He took out a wonderful doll and a lacquer box of cakes and put them into her outstretched hands. Once more he dived into his basket, and presented his wife with a metal mirror. Its convex surface shone brightly, while upon its back there was a design of pine trees and storks.

The good man's wife had never seen a mirror before, and on gazing into it she was under the impression that another woman looked out upon her as she gazed with growing wonder. Her husband explained the mystery and bade her take great care of the mirror.

Not long after this happy homecoming and distribution of presents the woman became very ill. Just before she died she called to her little daughter, and said: "Dear child, when I am dead take every care of your father. You will miss me when I have left you. But take this mirror, and when you feel most lonely look into it and you will always see me." Having said these words she passed away.

In due time the man married again, and his wife was not at all kind to her stepdaughter. But the little one, remembering her mother's words, would retire to a corner and eagerly look into the mirror, where it seemed to her that she saw her dear mother's face, not drawn in pain as she had seen it on her deathbed, but young and beautiful.

One day this child's stepmother chanced to see her crouching in a corner over an object she could not quite see, murmuring to herself. This ignorant woman, who detested the child and believed that her stepdaughter detested her in return, fancied that this little one was performing some strange magical art--perhaps making an image and sticking pins into it. Full of these notions, the stepmother went to her husband and told him that his wicked child was doing her best to kill her by witchcraft.

When the master of the house had listened to this extraordinary recital he went straight to his daughter's room. He took her by surprise, and immediately the girl saw him she slipped the mirror into her sleeve. For the first time her doting father grew angry, and he feared that there was, after all, truth in what his wife had told him, and he repeated her tale forthwith.

When his daughter had heard this unjust accusation she was amazed at her father's words, and she told him that she loved him far too well ever to attempt or wish to kill his wife, who she knew was dear to him.

"What have you hidden in your sleeve?" said her father, only half convinced and still much puzzled.

"The mirror you gave my mother, and which she on her deathbed gave to me. Every time I look into its shining surface I see the face of my dear mother, young and beautiful. When my heart aches--and oh! it has ached so much lately--I take out the mirror, and mother's face, with sweet, kind smile, brings me peace, and helps me to bear hard words and cross looks."

Then the man understood and loved his child the more for her filial piety. Even the girl's stepmother, when she knew what had really taken place, was ashamed and asked forgiveness. And this child, who believed she had seen her mother's face in the mirror, forgave, and trouble forever departed from the home.
Many years ago there lived on the then barren plain of Suruga a woodsman by the name of Visu. He was a giant in stature, and lived in a hut with his wife and children.
One day Visu received a visit from an old priest, who said to him: "Honorable woodsman, I am afraid you never pray."

Visu replied: "If you had a wife and a large family to keep, you would never have time to pray."

This remark made the priest angry, and the old man gave the woodcutter a vivid description of the horror of being reborn as a toad, or a mouse, or an insect for millions of years. Such lurid details were not to Visu's liking, and he accordingly promised the priest that in future he would pray.

"Work and pray," said the priest as he took his departure.

Unfortunately Visu did nothing but pray. He prayed all day long and refused to do any work, so that his rice crops withered and his wife and family starved. Visu's wife, who had hitherto never said a harsh or bitter word to her husband, now became extremely angry, and, pointing to the poor thin bodies of her children, she exclaimed: "Rise, Visu, take up your ax and do something more helpful to us all than the mere mumbling of prayers!"

Visu was so utterly amazed at what his wife had said that it was some time before he could think of a fitting reply. When he did so his words came hot and strong to the ears of his poor, much-wronged wife.

"Woman," said he, "the Gods come first. You are an impertinent creature to speak to me so, and I will have nothing more to do with you!" Visu snatched up his ax and, without looking round to say farewell, he left the hut, strode out of the wood, and climbed up Fujiyama, where a mist hid him from sight.

When Visu had seated himself upon the mountain he heard a soft rustling sound, and immediately afterward saw a fox dart into a thicket. Now Visu deemed it extremely lucky to see a fox, and, forgetting his prayers, he sprang up, and ran hither and thither in the hope of again finding this sharp-nosed little creature.

He was about to give up the chase when, coming to an open space in a wood, he saw two ladies sitting down by a brook playing go. The woodsman was so completely fascinated that he could do nothing but sit down and watch them. There was no sound except the soft click of pieces on the board and the song of the running brook. The ladies took no notice of Visu, for they seemed to be playing a strange game that had no end, a game that entirely absorbed their attention. Visu could not keep his eyes off these fair women. He watched their long black hair and the little quick hands that shot out now and again from their big silk sleeves in order to move the pieces.

After he had been sitting there for three hundred years, though to him it was but a summer's afternoon, he saw that one of the players had made a false move. "Wrong, most lovely lady!" he exclaimed excitedly. In a moment these women turned into foxes and ran away.

When Visu attempted to pursue them he found to his horror that his limbs were terribly stiff, that his hair was very long, and that his beard touched the ground. He discovered, moreover, that the handle of his ax, though made of the hardest wood, had crumbled away into a little heap of dust.

After many painful efforts Visu was able to stand on his feet and proceed very slowly toward his little home. When he reached the spot he was surprised to see no hut, and, perceiving a very old woman, he said: "Good lady, I am amazed to find that my little home has disappeared. I went away this afternoon, and now in the evening it has vanished!"

The old woman, who believed that a madman was addressing her, inquired his name. When she was told, she exclaimed: "Bah! You must indeed be mad! Visu lived three hundred years ago! He went away one day, and he never came back again."

"Three hundred years!" murmured Visu. "It cannot be possible. Where are my dear wife and children?"

"Buried!" hissed the old woman, "and, if what you say is true, you children's children too. The Gods have prolonged your miserable life in punishment for having neglected your wife and little children."

Big tears ran down Visu's withered cheeks as he said in a husky voice: "I have lost my manhood. I have prayed when my dear ones starved and needed the labor of my once strong hands. Old woman, remember my last words: "If you pray, work too!"

We do not know how long the poor but repentant Visu lived after he returned from his strange adventures. His white spirit is still said to haunt Fujiyama when the moon shines brightly.

This is a type 766 folktale. Davis entitles the story "The Rip van Winkle of Old Japan."

Return to the table of contents.

Many hundred years ago there lived an honest old woodcutter and his wife. One fine morning the old man went off to the hills with his billhook, to gather a faggot of sticks, while his wife went down to the river to wash the dirty clothes. When she came to the river, she saw a peach floating down the stream; so she picked it up, and carried it home with her, thinking to give it to her husband to eat when he should come in.
The old man soon came down from the hills, and the good wife set the peach before him, when, just as she was inviting him to eat it, the fruit split in two, and a little puling baby was born into the world. So the old couple took the babe, and brought it up as their own; and, because it had been born in a peach, they called it Momotaro, or Little Peachling.

By degrees Little Peachling grew up to be strong and brave, and at last one day he said to his old foster parents: "I am going to the ogres' island to carry off the riches that they have stored up there. Pray, then, make me some millet dumplings for my journey."

So the old folks ground the millet, and made the dumplings for him; and Little Peachling, after taking an affectionate leave of them, cheerfully set out on his travels.

As he was journeying on, he fell in with a monkey, who gibbered at him, and said: "Kia! kia! kia! where are you off to, Little Peachling?"

"I'm going to the ogres' island, to carry off their treasure," answered Little Peachling.

"What are you carrying at your girdle?"

"I'm carrying the very best millet dumplings in all Japan."

"If you'll give me one, I will go with you," said the monkey.

So Little Peachling gave one of his dumplings to the monkey, who received it and followed him. When he had gone a little further, he heard a pheasant calling: "Ken! ken! ken! where are you off to, Master Peachling?"

Little Peachling answered as before; and the pheasant, having begged and obtained a millet dumpling, entered his service, and followed him.

A little while after this, they met a dog, who cried: "Bow! wow! wow! whither away, Master Peachling?"

"I'm going off to the ogres' island, to carry off their treasure."

"If you will give me one of those nice millet dumplings of yours, I will go with you," said the dog.

"With all my heart," said Little Peachling. So he went on his way, with the monkey, the pheasant, and the dog following after him.

When they got to the ogres' island, the pheasant flew over the castle gate, and the monkey clambered over the castle wall, while Little Peachling, leading the dog, forced in the gate, and got into the castle. Then they did battle with the ogres, and put them to flight, and took their king prisoner. So all the ogres did homage to Little Peachling, and brought out the treasures which they had laid up. There were caps and coats that made their wearers invisible, jewels which governed the ebb and flow of the tide, coral, musk, emeralds, amber, and tortoise shell, besides gold and silver. All these were laid before Little Peachling by the conquered ogres.

So Little Peachling went home laden with riches, and maintained his foster parents in peace and plenty for the remainder of their lives.
Once upon a time there lived an old man and an old woman. The old man, who had a kind heart, kept a young sparrow, which he tenderly nurtured. But the dame was a cross-grained old thing; and one day, when the sparrow had pecked at some paste with which she was going to starch her linen, she flew into a great rage, and cut the sparrow's tongue and let it loose.
When the old man came home from the hills and found that the bird had flown, he asked what had become of it; so the old woman answered that she had cut its tongue and let it go, because it had stolen her starching-paste. Now the old man, hearing this cruel tale, was sorely grieved, and thought to himself: "Alas! Where can my bird be gone? Poor thing! Poor little tongue-cut sparrow! Where is your home now?" and he wandered far and wide, seeking for his pet, and crying: "Mr. Sparrow! Mr. Sparrow! Where are you living?"

One day, at the foot of a certain mountain, the old man fell in with the lost bird; and when they had congratulated one another on their mutual safety, the sparrow led the old man to his home, and, having introduced him to his wife and chicks, set before him all sorts of dainties, and entertained him hospitably.

"Please partake of our humble fare," said the sparrow. Poor as it is, you are very welcome."

"What a polite sparrow!" answered the old man, who remained for a long time as the sparrow's guest, and was daily feasted right royally. At last the old man said that he must take his leave and return home; and the bird, offering him two wicker baskets, begged him to carry them with him as a parting present. One of the baskets was heavy, and the other was light; so the old man, saying that as he was feeble and stricken in years he would only accept the light one, shouldered it, and trudged off home, leaving the sparrow family disconsolate at parting from him.

When the old man got home, the dame grew very angry, and began to scold him saying: "Well, and pray where have you been this many a day? A pretty thing, indeed, to be gadding about at your time of life!"

"Oh!" replied he, "I have been on a visit to the sparrows; and when I came away, they gave me this wicker basket as a parting gift." Then they opened the basket to see what was inside, and, lo and behold, it was full of gold and silver and precious things. When the old woman, who was as greedy as she was cross, saw all the riches displayed before her, she changed her scolding strain, and could not contain herself for joy.

"I'll go and call upon the sparrows, too," said she, "and get a pretty present." So she asked the old man the way to the sparrows' house, and set forth on her journey.

Following his direction, she at last met the tongue-cut sparrow, and exclaimed: "Well met! Well met, Mr. Sparrow! I have been looking forward to the pleasure of seeing you." So she tried to flatter and cajole the sparrow by soft speeches.

The bird could not but invite the dame to its home; but it took no pains to feast her, and said nothing about a parting gift. She, however, was not to be put off; so she asked for something to carry away with her in remembrance of her visit. The sparrow accordingly produced two baskets, as before, and the greedy old woman, choosing the heavier of the two, carried it off with her. But when she opened the basket to see what was inside, all sorts of hobgoblins and elves sprang out of it, and began to torment her.

But the old man adopted a son, and his family grew rich and prosperous. What a happy old man!
In the ancient monastery of Miidera there was a great bronze bell. It rang out every morning and evening, a clear, rich note, and its surface shone like sparkling dew. The priests would not allow any woman to strike it, because they thought that such an action would pollute and dull the metal, as well as bring calamity upon them.
When a certain pretty woman who lived in Kyoto heard this, she grew extremely inquisitive, and at last, unable to restrain her curiosity, she said: "I will go and see this wonderful bell of Miidera. I will make it send forth a soft note, and in its shining surface, bigger and brighter than a thousand mirrors, I will paint and powder my face and dress my hair."

At length this vain and irreverent woman reached the belfry in which the great bell was suspended, at a time when all were absorbed in their sacred duties. She looked into the gleaming bell and saw her pretty eyes, flushed cheeks, and laughing dimples. Presently she stretched forth her little fingers, lightly touched the shining metal, and prayed that she might have as great and splendid a mirror for her own. When the bell felt this woman's fingers, the bronze that she touched shrank, leaving a little hollow, and losing at the same time all its exquisite polish.
Once upon a time there lived a stonecutter, who went every day to a great rock in the side of a big mountain and cut out slabs for gravestones or for houses. He understood very well the kinds of stones wanted for the different purposes, and as he was a careful workman he had plenty of customers. For a long time he was quite happy and contented, and asked for nothing better than what he had.
Now in the mountain dwelt a spirit which now and then appeared to men, and helped them in many ways to become rich and prosperous. The stonecutter, however, had never seen this spirit, and only shook his head, with an unbelieving air, when anyone spoke of it. But a time was coming when he learned to change his opinion.

One day the stonecutter carried a gravestone to the house of a rich man, and saw there all sorts of beautiful things, of which he had never even dreamed. Suddenly his daily work seemed to grow harder and heavier, and he said to himself: "Oh, if only I were a rich man, and could sleep in a bed with silken curtains and golden tassels, how happy I should be!"

And a voice answered him: "Your wish is heard; a rich man you shall be!"

At the sound of the voice the stonecutter looked around, but could see nobody. He thought it was all his fancy, and picked up his tools and went home, for he did not feel inclined to do any more work that day. But when he reached the little house where he lived, he stood still with amazement, for instead of his wooden hut was a stately palace filled with splendid furniture, and most splendid of all was the bed, in every respect like the one he had envied. He was nearly beside himself with joy, and in his new life the old one was soon forgotten.

It was now the beginning of summer, and each day the sun blazed more fiercely. One morning the heat was so great that the stonecutter could scarcely breathe, and he determined he would stop at home till the evening. He was rather dull, for he had never learned how to amuse himself, and was peeping through the closed blinds to see what was going on in the street, when a little carriage passed by, drawn by servants dressed in blue and silver. In the carriage sat a prince, and over his head a golden umbrella was held, to protect him from the sun's rays.

"Oh, if I were only a prince!" said the stonecutter to himself, as the carriage vanished around the corner. "Oh, if I were only a prince, and could go in such a carriage and have a golden umbrella held over me, how happy I should be!"

And a prince he was. Before his carriage rode one company of men and another behind it; servants dressed in scarlet and gold bore him along, the coveted umbrella was held over his head, everything his heart could desire was his. But yet it was not enough. He looked around still for something to wish for, and when he saw that in spite of the water he poured on the grass the rays of the sun scorched it, and that in spite of the umbrella held over his head each day his face grew browner and browner, he cried in his anger: "The sun is mightier than I; oh, if I were only the sun!"

And the mountain spirit answered: "Your wish is heard; the sun you shall be."

And the sun he was, and felt himself proud in his power. He shot his beams above and below, on earth and in heaven; he burnt up the grass in the fields and scorched the faces of princes as well as of poorer folk. but in a short time he began to grow tired of his might, for there seemed nothing left for him to do. Discontent once more filled his soul, and when a cloud covered his face, and hid the earth from him, he cried in his anger: "Does the cloud hold captive my rays, and is it mightier than I? Oh, that I were a cloud, and mightier than any!"

And the mountain spirit answered: "Your wish is heard; a cloud you shall be!"

And a cloud he was, and lay between the sun and the earth. He caught the sun's beams and held them, and to his joy the earth grew green again and flowers blossomed. But that was not enough for him, and for days and week he poured forth rain till the rivers overflowed their banks, and the crops of rice stood in water. Towns and villages were destroyed by the power of the rain, only the great rock on the mountainside remained unmoved. The cloud was amazed at the sight, and cried in wonder: "Is the rock, then, mightier than I? Oh, if I were only the rock!"

And the mountain spirit answered; "Your wish is heard; the rock you shall be!"

And the rock he was, and gloried in his power. Proudly he stood, and neither the heat of the sun nor the force of the rain could move him. "This is better than all!" he said to himself. But one day he heard a strange noise at his feet, and when he looked down to see what it could be, he saw a stonecutter driving tools into his surface. Even while he looked a trembling feeling ran all through him, and a great block broke off and fell upon the ground. Then he cried in his wrath: "Is a mere child of earth mightier than a rock? Oh, if I were only a man!"

And the mountain spirit answered: "Your wish is heard. A man once more you shall be!"

And a man he was, and in the sweat of his brow he toiled again at his trade of stone cutting. His bed was hard and his food scanty, but he had learned to be satisfied with it, and did not long to be something or somebody else. And as he never asked for things he did not have, or desired to be greater and mightier than other people, he was happy at last, and never again heard the voice of the mountain spirit.
At Asakusa, in Yedo, there lives a man called Danzayémon, the chief of the Etas. This man traces his pedigree back to Minamoto no Yoritomo, who founded the Shogunate in the year 1192 A.D. The whole of the Etas in Japan are under his jurisdiction; his subordinates are called Koyagashira, or "chiefs of the huts"; and they constitute the government of the Etas. In the "Legacy of Iyéyasu," the 36th Law provides as follows:
All wandering mendicants, such as male sorcerers, female diviners, hermits, blind people, beggars, and tanners (Etas), have had from of old their respective rulers. Be not disinclined, however, to punish any such who give rise to disputes, or who overstep the boundaries of their own classes and are disobedient to existing laws.
The occupation of the Etas is to kill and flay horses, oxen, and other beasts, to stretch drums and make shoes; and if they are very poor, they wander from house to house, working as cobblers, mending old shoes and leather, and so earn a scanty livelihood. Besides this, their daughters and young married women gain a trifle as wandering minstrels, called Torioi, playing on the shamisen, a sort of banjo, and singing ballads. They never marry out of their own fraternity, but remain apart, a despised and shunned race.
At execution by crucifixion it is the duty of the Etas to transfix the victims with spears; and, besides this, they have to perform all sorts of degrading offices about criminals, such as carrying sick prisoners from their cells to the hall of justice, and burying the bodies of those that have been executed. Thus their race is polluted and accursed, and they are hated accordingly.

Now this is how the Etas come to be under the jurisdiction of Danzayémon:

When Minamoto no Yoritomo was yet a child, his father, Minamoto no Yoshitomo, fought with Taira no Kiyomori, and was killed by treachery: so his family was ruined; and Yoshitomo's concubine, whose name was Tokiwa, took her children and fled from the house, to save her own and their lives. But Kiyomori, desiring to destroy the family of Yoshitomo root and branch, ordered his retainers to divide themselves into bands, and seek out the children. At last they were found; but Tokiwa was so exceedingly beautiful that Kiyomori was inflamed with love for her, and desired her to become his own concubine. Then Tokiwa told Kiyomori that if he would spare her little ones she would share his couch; but that if he killed her children she would destroy herself rather than yield to his desire. When he heard this, Kiyomori, bewildered by the beauty of Tokiwa, spared the lives of her children, but banished them from the capital.

So Yoritomo was sent to Hirugakojima, in the province of Idzu; and when he grew up and became a man, he married the daughter of a peasant. After a while Yoritomo left the province, and went to the wars, leaving his wife pregnant; and in due time she was delivered of a male child, to the delight of her parents, who rejoiced that their daughter should bear seed to a nobleman; but she soon fell sick and died, and the old people took charge of the babe. And when they also died, the care of the child fell to his mother's kinsmen, and he grew up to be a peasant.

Now Kiyomori, the enemy of Yoritomo, had been gathered to his fathers; and Yoritomo had avenged the death of his father by slaying Munémori, the son of Kiyomori; and there was peace throughout the land. And Yoritomo became the chief of all the noble houses in Japan, and first established the government of the country. When Yoritomo had thus raised himself to power, if the son that his peasant wife had born to him had proclaimed himself the sons of the mighty prince, he would have been made lord over a province; but he took no thought of this, and remained a tiller of the earth, forfeiting a glorious inheritance; and his descendants after him lived as peasants in the same village, increasing in prosperity and in good repute among their neighbors.

But the princely line of Yoritomo came to an end in three generations, and the house of Hojo was all-powerful in the land.

Now it happened that the head of the house of Hojo heard that a descendant of Yoritomo was living as a peasant in the land, so he summoned him and said: "It is a hard thing to see the son of an illustrious house live and die a peasant. I will promote you to the rank of Samurai."

Then the peasant answered: "My lord, if I become a Samurai, and the retainer of some noble, I shall not be so happy as when I was my own master. If I may not remain a husbandman, let me be a chief over men, however humble they may be."

But my lord Hojo was angry at this, and thinking to punish the peasant for his insolence, said: "Since you wish to become a chief over men, no matter how humble, there is no means of gratifying your strange wish but by making you chief over the Etas of the whole country. So now see that you rule them well."

When he heard this, the peasant was afraid; but because he had said that he wished to become a chief over men, however humble, he could not choose but become chief of the Etas, he and his children after him for ever; and Danzayémon, who rules the Etas at the present time, and lives at Asakusa, is his lineal descendant.
Return to D. L. Ashliman's folktexts , a library of folktales, folklore, fairy tales, and mythology.
Revised April 5, 2015.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
selected and edited by D. L. Ashliman © 1998-2015 The Two Frogs. The Mirror of Matsuyama. Visu the Woodsman and the Old Priest. The Adventures of Little Peachling. The Tongue-Cut Sparrow. A Woman and the Bell of Miidera. The Stonecutter. Danzayémon, Chief of the Etas. Links to related sites.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article on the importance of Creative Writing

# data[].attributes.subject
Article on the importance of Creative Writing

# data[].attributes.body
This website shows how important Creative Writing is and why it should be taught in education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At first glance, it sounds frivolous. Why should we spend money teaching courses on creative writing in public high schools? Simple: because it's absolutely necessary.

Think about it: creative writing forces you to use your imagination in ways that make you more aware of, and also question, your surroundings. By encouraging adolescents to write from different narratives, it forces them to examine all sides of a story, not just one perspective.

The ability to teach students to really dig down dip, to not just take things as they are on the surface but to investigate, is a lesson that will remain with them through out the rest of their lives. We won't be raising a generation of jerks that assume the worst of each other, we'll be raising a generation that will (hopefully) cling to the idea that there's more to a situation than meets the eye.

While rudimentary English classes lays the ground work for understanding the nature of language, creative writing helps elaborate on the importance of story, and it is not an extraneous lesson. Stories overwhelm our culture. Stories help us build strong relationships. Story structure is at the base of all things, a sacred geometry if you will. I bet you anything we all use stories far more than (or on par with) mathematics daily.

Another benefit of teaching creative writing in public high schools is the gift of giving students a new way to look at themselves. Writing creatively helps inform people of who they really are and what they're capable of in a way that most pedagogical courses, don't. It is in creative writing courses where students unearth who they are. It is in creative writing courses where students look anew at the world around them, aware of the sacred little details that eluded them before. It is in creative writing courses where a student is forced to question and to seek.

It's wrong to disenfranchise our youth by staving off creativity and imagination, we must embrace it. Teaching creative writing courses in public high schools can open a new door for the hopeless, for the misfits, for the adolescents who have yet to discover who they are, and for the adolescents who want to grow in who they are. To teach creative writing in high schools, in my eyes, is not frivolous, but the best gift you can give to the fledgling youth of this nation.

What do you think?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why creative writing should be taught in public high schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At first glance, it sounds frivolous. Why should we spend money teaching courses on creative writing in public high schools? Simple: because it's absolutely necessary. Think about it: creative writing forces you to use your imagination in ways that make you more aware of, and also question, your surroundings.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why is showing Japanese Creative Writing important?

# data[].attributes.subject
Why is showing Japanese Creative Writing important?

# data[].attributes.body
Parts of Japanese culture such as official documents, records and non-creative texts are important, but I believe that showing samples of Japanese stories and creativity will interest our audiences and help them to truly appreciate the culture. Everyone loves a good story more than a wall of statistics, and in any creative medium, part of the culture is reflected in a significant way. Through my contribution and showing of Japanese Creative Writing, I can display history, culture, beliefs and ideologies to the audience.

# data[].attributes.body
It would be difficult to teach people such a vast amount of different phrases and courtesies and expect them to remember them all. I would suggest for the audience to practice over time after the Convention if they're (hopefully) still invested in learning about Japan. There are multiple websites such as the one linked which can help remind them and test them on what they've been taught. It would also be beneficial for the audience to contact other people that they interacted with at the talk to further practice. There are also websites that would allow them to talk online with people living in Japan

# data[].attributes.body
Japanese culture is different from Australian culture in many aspects. I wanted to include expert opinions throughout the documentary through the form of interviews. Interviews often add credibility to the information given throughout the documentary and I was aiming to make the documentary more engaging through the use of local opinions. This article outlines the different ways in which interviews can be used (voice over, direct face to camera). It also outlines the importance of carefully researching and selecting who will present what information in interviews.  The article also discusses the fact that the interview questions asked need to  be constructed to allow for engaging, interesting answers.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why it is important to practice and engage with others

# data[].attributes.subject
Why it is important to practice and engage with others

# data[].attributes.body
The reason that my talk will be interactive is to get people to engage and learn with others who are on a similar level to them. By allowing the audience to interact with one another they can practice listening, speaking, and understanding all at once in a real-life situation. It also provides a means for people to be wrong and correct each other. The most effective way to learn new information is through trying, being incorrect, and learning from their mistakes. Derek Muller shows how active participation and making mistakes promotes people to be more confident and able in their task.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why it is important to teach common phrases and courtesies

# data[].attributes.subject
Why it is important to teach common phrases and courtesies

# data[].attributes.body
As the convention is aimed at a target audience who would have no, or little, knowledge of Japan, they're likely to not know of any taboo actions or phrases which may be seen as rude or insulting to native Japanese people. It is important to teach our audience about such taboos so that they can avoid accidentally offending anybody or making a fool of themselves while in Japan. It is important to teach common phrases so that they understand the basic manners and greetings of Japanese people. Teaching them to understand basic sentence structure will improve their ability to ask and understand important questions such as: where is the nearest train station?

# data[].attributes.body
It is really important to make ethical choices during pre production, production and post production. accuracy of information is extremely important. If the information is inaccurate, the documentary would loose credibility. Additionally providing false information could be seen as an unethical, especially when advertising that you are producing a piece of work containing factual information. This article has outlined some of the ethical issues a filmmaker may encounter during production. Editing and manipulation of information to present the desired ideas also need to be morally acceptable and not bending the truth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
September 2009
Click here to view or download a PDF of this report.

Report by:

Pat Aufderheide,
Co-director, Center for Media & Social Impact, American University

Peter Jaszi,
Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law

Mridu Chandra,
Writer and Filmmaker

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary Ethics and Documentary Discussion Subjects: Do No Harm, Protect the Vulnerable Viewers: Honoring Trust Conclusion
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This study provides a map of perceived ethical challenges that documentary filmmakers-directors and producer-directors-in the United States identify in the practice of their craft. It summarizes the results of 45 long-form interviews in which filmmakers were asked simply to describe recent ethical challenges that surfaced in their work. This baseline research is necessary to begin any inquiry into ethical standards because the field has not yet articulated ethical standards specific to documentary. These interviews demonstrate, indeed, a need for a more public and focused conversation about ethics before any standards emerging from shared experience and values can be articulated.

Documentary filmmakers identified themselves as creative artists for whom ethical behavior is at the core of their projects. At a time when there is unprecedented financial pressure on makers to lower costs and increase productivity, filmmakers reported that they routinely found themselves in situations where they needed to balance ethical responsibilities against practical considerations. Their comments can be grouped into three conflicting sets of responsibilities: to their subjects, their viewers, and their own artistic vision and production exigencies.

Filmmakers resolved these conflicts on an ad-hoc basis and argued routinely for situational, case-by-case ethical decisions. At the same time, they shared unarticulated general principles and limitations. They commonly shared such principles as, in relation to subjects, "Do no harm" and "Protect the vulnerable," and, in relation to viewers, "Honor the viewer's trust."

Filmmakers observed these principles with widely shared limitations. In relation to subjects, they often did not feel obliged to protect subjects who they believed had themselves done harm or who had independent access to media, such as celebrities or corporate executives with their own public relations arms. In relation to viewers, they often justified the manipulation of individual facts, sequences, and meanings of images, if it meant telling a story more effectively and helped viewers grasp the main, and overall truthful, themes of a story.

Finally, filmmakers generally expressed frustration in two areas. They daily felt the lack of clarity and standards in ethical practice. They also lacked support for ethical deliberation under typical work pressures.

This survey demonstrated that filmmakers generally are acutely aware of moral dimensions of their craft, and of the economic and social pressures that affect them. This study demonstrates the need to have a more public and ongoing conversation about ethical problems in documentary filmmaking. Filmmakers need to develop a more broadly shared understanding of the nature of their problems and to evolve a common understanding of fair ways to balance their various obligations.

ETHICS AND DOCUMENTARY

Concerns about documentary ethics are not new, but they have intensified over the past several years in response to changes in the industry. By the late 1990s, U.S. documentary filmmakers had become widely respected media makers, recognized as independent voices at a time of falling public confidence in mainstream media and in the integrity of the political process. At the same time, documentary television production was accelerating to fill the need for quality programming in ever-expanding screen time, generating popular, formula-driven programs. The growth of commercial opportunities and the prominence of politics as a documentary subject also produced tensions. Documentary filmmakers, whether they were producing histories for public television, nature programs for cable, or independent political documentaries, found themselves facing not only economic pressure but also close scrutiny for the ethics of their practices.

Controversies emerged about several documentaries. Was Fahrenheit 9/11 accurate in its factual indictment of the Bush administration's geopolitics? Did Mighty Times: The Children's March misrepresent civil rights history through its use of both fabricated and repurposed archival evidence? Should films such as Ghosts of Abu Ghraib and Standard Operating Procedure feature images that further embarrass and humiliate their subjects?

Filmmakers were drawn into criticism of their peers, while lacking common standards of reference. Unlike journalism, documentary filmmaking has largely been an individual, freelance effort. Documentary filmmakers typically are small business owners, selling their work to a range of distributors, mostly in television. Even producers working for large outlets, such as Discovery, National Geographic, and PBS, are typically independent contractors. Individual filmmakers may develop concurrent projects with and for a range of television programmers, from PBS to the Food Channel, balancing sponsored work (for income) with projects of the heart. Some of these outlets may ask filmmakers to observe standards and practices, and/or ethics codes derived from print journalism and broadcast news and developed in conjunction with journalism programs in higher education. For the most part, however, when it comes to standards and ethics (and even independent fact checking), documentary filmmakers have largely depended on individual judgment, guidance from executives, and occasional conversations at film festivals and on listservs.

At the same time, many of the filmmakers surveyed spoke of commercial pressures, particularly in the cable business, to make decisions they believed to be unethical. The trend towards faster and cheaper documentaries and the "assembly line" nature of work has proven challenging to filmmakers' understanding of their obligations to subjects in particular. They also blurred the line between traditional documentary, reality, and hybrid forms. These developments often troubled documentarians: "[Facts] are not verified . . . It has no ethics. It's increasingly entertainment. To look at a homicide that happened seven years ago, and look at who did it-it's good entertainment. It has no ethical or redemptive value . . . It's not increasing anyone's knowledge." Budgets demand efficiencies that may be ethically troubling. In one case, for instance, a filmmaker was on location shooting a wildlife film, trying to capture one animal hunting another:

We tried to shoot a few, and missed both of them. Unbeknownst to me, the [animal wrangler] broke the next rabbit's leg, so it couldn't run. So we got one. On the next take, they then asked, "Should we break its leg again?" . . . the DP [director of photography] was sitting there, saying "No, I'm sure you wouldn't want to do it," but nodding his head yes. I made the decision, let them break it. I regret it. It eats me up every day. I can sort of rationalize this, that it might be killed by a natural predator. But for us to inflict pain to get a better shot was the wrong thing to do.

Filmmakers also face pressure to inflate drama or character conflict and to create drama where no natural drama exists. They may be encouraged to alter the story to pump up the excitement, the conflict, or the danger. In one case, a filmmaker lacked exciting enough pictures of a particular animal from a shoot, and the executive producer substituted animals from another country. The filmmaker believed this to misrepresent the conditions of the region.

The assembly-line nature of the production process also threatens the integrity of agreements made between producers and their subjects as a condition of filming. The producer who lines up subjects or oversees production is often separated from editing and postproduction. Filmmakers felt frustrated that stations did not always honor the agreements they had made with their subjects. In one example, interviews were given and releases were signed on condition that they "garble their voice and obscure their face . . . They didn't garble the voice but did obscure the face. That makes me uncomfortable; it puts them at risk."

Where institutional standards and practices exist, as in the news divisions of some broadcast and cablecast networks, filmmakers felt helpfully guided by them. However, even filmmakers who work with television organizations with standards and practices may not benefit from them because the programs are executed through the entertainment divisions.

The standards and practices share some common themes, as analyzed by project advisor Jon Else. They typically assert that an independent media is a bulwark of democracy, and that the trust-of both audience and subject-is essential. They eschew conflict of interest. To achieve those goals, standards uphold accuracy, fairness, and obeying of law, including privacy law. Furthermore, producers, who were held responsible for the standards, are typically forbidden to offer subjects the right of review or to restage events; they are required to ensure that image and sound properly represent reality, and that music and special effects are used sparingly. Furthermore, noncommercial public TV news programs explicitly placed journalistic standards above commercial mandates.

Singled out for notice was the attention at some television networks-even when not in the news division-to factual accuracy. One filmmaker, for instance, created archival material to use in her documentary and was asked to take it out by thebroadcaster when they found out it wasn't real. "We loved the texture of the campaign commercials for various candidates. [Our subject] had one for radio; we used the audio and made a commercial [to go with the audio]. [Our broadcaster] asked if it was real. And it wasn't, so we had to take it out. It's too misleading to the audience." They also respected broadcasters' fact-checking departments, and some found that people in those departments were willing to push back against network pressures to fudge facts or artificially enhance drama.

When documentary filmmakers do have to make their own ethical decisions, how do they reason? What are their concerns? How much do their own reasoning processes correlate with existing journalism codes? As documentary production becomes more generalized, and as public affairs become ever more participatory, the question of what ethical norms exist and can be shared is increasingly important. This study explores those questions.

METHODS

The core data was gathered in long-form, hour-long interviews, grounded in open-ended questions, conducted usually by phone. Filmmakers were asked to speak about their own experiences, focusing on the recent past, rather than generalizing about the field. The interview team consisted of Center for Social Media fellow and filmmaker Mridu Chandra and American University School of Communication MFA graduate student Maura Ugarte. Data were reviewed by an advisory board composed of two industry veterans-filmmaker and author Sheila Curran Bernard and filmmaker and professor Jon Else-and documentary film scholar Bill Nichols.

The interview pool consisted of 41 directors or producer-directors who had released at least two productions at a national level and who have authorial control. Most of those makers had experience both with nonprofit outlets, such as public TV, and with cable or commercial network television. Also included were four executive producers in national television programming organizations. The population spanned three generations.

All interviewees were provided with a consent form that had been approved by the American University Institutional Review Board, and all were offered anonymity. Anonymity was important to many, especially to those working directly and currently for large organizations. Anonymity permitted filmmakers to speak freely about situations that may have put them or their companies under uncomfortable scrutiny. At the same time, some people encouraged us to make their stories public and volunteered use of their names.

DISCUSSION

Filmmakers identified challenges in two kinds of relationships that raised ethical questions: with subjects and with viewers. The ethical tensions in the first relationship focused on how to maintain a humane working relationship with someone whose story they were telling. The ethical tensions in the second focused on ways to maintain a viewer's faith in the accuracy and integrity of the work. In both cases, militating against what filmmakers might prefer personally to do was the obligation to complete a compelling and honest documentary story within budget.

In most cases, documentarians believed strongly in making informal commitments and employing situational ethics determined on a case-by-case basis. They nonetheless subscribed to shared, but unarticulated, general principles. In the case of subjects who they believed were less powerful in the relationship than themselves, they believed that their work should not harm the subjects or leave them worse off than before. In the case of viewers, they believed that they were obligated to provide a generally truthful narrative or story, even if some of the means of doing that involved misrepresentation, manipulation, or elision.

SUBJECTS: DO NO HARM, PROTECT THE VULNERABLE

In thinking about their subjects, filmmakers typically described a relationship in which the filmmaker had more social and sometimes economic power than the subject. In this case, they worked for a good-faith relationship that would not put their subjects at risk or cause them to be worse off than they were before the relationship began. They widely shared the notions of "Do no harm" and "Protect the vulnerable."

They usually treated this relationship as less than friendship and more than a professional relationship, and often as one in which the subject could make significant demands on the filmmaker. "We want to have a human relationship with our subjects," said Gordon Quinn, "but there are boundaries that should not be crossed. For example, any kind of romantic relationship would be unacceptable. You always have to be aware of the power that you as a filmmaker have in relationship to your subject." At the same time, they recognized that professional obligations might force them at least to cause pain. In one case, Sam Pollard asked a subject to redo an interview in order to get a more emotionally rich version of a painful moment when he had been abused by police in prison. The second time, "he was crying, I was crying, we were all crying. It was so powerful. After I wrapped, I felt like a real shit for the rest of the day, felt like I manipulated him for my personal gain. It is a powerful moment in the film but I felt bad to push him to that point when he broke down."

This perception of the nature of the relationship-a sympathetic one in which a joint responsibility to tell the subject's story is undertaken, with the filmmaker in charge-demonstrates a major difference between the work of documentary filmmakers and news reporters. Many documentary filmmakers work with people whom they have chosen and typically see themselves as stewards of the subjects' stories. As one filmmaker noted: "I am in their life for a whole year. So there is a more profound relationship, not a journalistic two or three hours."

They were acutely aware of the power they have over their subjects. "I usually enter people's lives at a time of crisis. If the tables were turned, God forbid," said Joe Berlinger, "I would never allow them to make a film about my tragedy. I am keenly aware of the hypocrisy of asking someone for access that I myself would probably not grant." "They let you be there as their life unfolds," said Steven Ascher, "and that carries with it a responsibility to try to anticipate how the audience will see them, and at times to protect them when necessary."

"I often think, 'Let me be this person watching the film.' Would they hate me? Or would they think it's fair?" one filmmaker told us. "I want to always be able to send the DVD to them." Another explained, "You owe them always having in your mind the power you have as a filmmaker, presenting them to millions of people. There are some filmmakers who love the down and dirty-'I found a fool and I will show them as a fool.' This is justified sometimes, but it's often abusive of your power."

Filmmakers also recognized limits to the obligation to the subject. One diagnostic was whether the filmmaker found the subject ethically lacking, for instance, because of politically or economically corrupt acts. Steven Ascher said that "revealing a subject's weaknesses or positions that the audience is likely to find laughable or repellant can be justified when they are taking advantage of other people or when they are so completely convinced of their own rightness, they would be happy with their portrayal. You don't owe them more than that."

Finally, some filmmakers believed that deceit was appropriate in the service of their work with vulnerable subjects and their stories and with powerful subjects who might put up obstacles.

Following is further discussion of ways in which ethical questions about relationships with subjects surfaced in interviews.

Pre-emptively protecting the subject

The keenly felt power differential between filmmaker and subject led some filmmakers to make unilateral storytelling decisions, usually to omit material, with empathy for the subjects. "It's important to lift up people who tell their stories, as opposed to making them victims. It's a moral decision not to enter their lives to only show how poor they are," said one. "When you have a scene or moment in the film, you may realize it's just a great moment, and then you realize the subject doesn't want that moment on screen. I always decide not to use that moment," said another. One subject when drunk revealed something he had never revealed when sober, and in the filmmaker's opinion probably would not. The filmmaker decided to exclude this information from the film. In still another case, an HIV-positive mother addicted to drugs asked filmmakers not to reveal where she lives. This filmmaker decided to take the story out altogether: "the harm that we could potentially do overwhelmed our [broadcasting rights] . . . we operate under a do-no-harm policy."

The felt power differential also led them to protect their subjects when they believed they were vulnerable-not, however, at the expense of preserving their own artistic options. Most kept filming and postponed the decision of whether or not to use the footage. For a film involving high school students, filmmaker Stanley Nelson asked which students smoked marijuana. "Everyone raised their hands. We felt it was better not to use that scene. They were minors, and might have problems with their families or with the law." Another director cited a situation where "one high school kid would lift a girl and put her head-first in a trashcan after the teacher had left. We said, 'We can't let this happen.' We stopped filming and stopped this from happening." One filmmaker who made a documentary about a company that employed illegal immigrants simply left that fact out of the film and did not report it, either: "We didn't call the police-we felt like that would be a breach of trust." Another filmmaker's subject told a story about trying to bring her son across the border illegally. "It's a powerful story, and its important plot-wise. We consulted with [an] immigration attorney . . . to figure out which of those statements could put the character at risk." The filmmaker removed an incriminating line, while keeping the general information and preserving the filmmaker's interests as a creator.

This protective attitude was dropped when filmmakers found an act ethically repugnant, often seeing their job as exposing malfeasance. In one extreme case, for instance, the filmmaker did not protect a subject who implied that he had committed a murder.

Preventing resale of images

Filmmakers also try to prevent material featuring their subjects from being reused by other filmmakers in ways that might misrepresent them in new contexts. Gordon Quinn recalled, "I made a film in the '70s about an 11-year -old girl growing up. Twenty years later some people making a film about abortion wanted to use some of our footage to set the historical context of the times. I insisted that they show me the cut and when I saw that they were implying that the girl had had an abortion, I said, 'You have to change that. She's a real person and you can't imply something about her that never happened.' "

However, filmmakers balanced this concern with the need to resell their footage to make a living and considered appropriate decision making part of maintaining their professional reputations. One said, "That is part of how you generate revenue as a filmmaker . . . it's a case-by-case example. Who is it and how they are using it is also important, because as a small independent [filmmaker] you are personally accountable. It's your reputation. If you abuse this, then you won't get access to people for the next project."

Sharing decision making

The awareness of a power differential also leads filmmakers sometimes to volunteer to share decision-making power with some subjects. Notably, this attitude does not extend to celebrities, whom filmmakers found to be aggressive and powerful in controlling their image. This distinction accords with filmmakers' sensitivity to the power differential in the relationship.

Most subjects signed releases allowing the makers complete editorial control and ownership of the footage for every use early on during the production process. The terms of these releases are usually dictated by insurers, whose insurance is required for most television airing and theatrical distribution. Perhaps because the terms of these releases were not their own, filmmakers often provided more leeway to their subjects than the strict terms provided in them. Filmmakers often felt that subjects had a right to change their minds (although the filmmakers found this deeply unpleasant) or to see the material involving them or even the whole film in advance of public screenings.

The informal basis upon which they operated also reflects the ambivalence they have about ceding control and their wish to preserve their own creative interests. The ongoing effort to strike a balance, and the negotiated nature of the relationship, was registered by Gordon Quinn:

We say to our subjects, "We are not journalists; we are going to spend years with you. Our code of ethics is very different. A journalist wouldn't show you the footage. We will show the film before it is finished. I want you to sign the release, but we will really listen to you. But ultimately it has to be our decision." In some cases I will say, "If there is something that you can't live with then we'll discuss it, we will have the argument and real dialogue. In the end, if I can't convince you then we'll take it out."

Some also believed that seeing material in advance helped make their subjects more comfortable with the exposure they would encounter, thus avoiding problems in the future. One director recalled, "I knew personal information about one of the [subjects] that I thought would make the film richer, but she was confiding to me in person, not as a filmmaker . . . We discussed it with her, and then she felt comfortable. We showed her the piece first. Then she was OK."

However, when filmmakers did not empathize with, understand, or agree with the subject's concern, or when they believed the subject had more social power than they did, they overrode it. In one case, a subject who had signed a release asked Stanley Nelson not to use an interview. The interview was important for the film, Nelson said, and he believed the request was motivated by desire to control the film. He "wanted us to interview someone else as a precondition [for using his own interview]," Nelson said. "We did talk to that other person on the phone and then decided not to interview them for the film. I felt that my obligation was fulfilled." In another case, a director decided not to show footage to a subject who wanted approval over material used, because he feared the subject would refuse to permit use. In both these cases, the choices not to honor the subject's requests reflected the fact that the subjects-both experts, not less-powerful subjects-attempted to exert control over the film's outcome that differed from that of the filmmakers.

Sharing control of fine cut

Some filmmakers, however, did give subjects the right to decide whether or not their material should be included in the film. Filmmakers grounded this permission in two arguments: they wanted to demonstrate a trust relationship with the subject, and they wanted to make a film that was responsible to the subjects' perspectives. As one said, "I don't want to make films where people feel like they are being trashed . . . We make the films we make because of these relationships we build. It's important to us that people agree with the film."

In some cases filmmakers wanted to share the responsibility and often showed a concern to maintain good relationships. One filmmaker recalled omitting a section on request. "It would have made a fabulous turning point in the film, but I didn't include it. Why? I was making a film about someone who was not loved . . . I wanted to learn more about why she did the awful things . . . it would have been a betrayal to not listen to her." Ross Kaufman noted that the subjects disagreed with the coda at the end of one of his films, saying that "it did not ring true to them . . . They didn't demand it, but they were right. I changed it . . . They were much happier, I was much happier, and the film was better because of it."

Another recalled a prolonged negotiation. When the filmmaker showed a scene of a handcuffed minor in juvenile hall-a crucial and pivotal scene-to the family, in spite of having releases, the mother objected. "Her reasons were good-she did not want her son to grow up and maybe have a family, and 25 years from now have his kids find out he was arrested for attempted murder." The filmmaker allowed the family to consider; eventually, "the kid himself spoke up and said that he was ok with it . . . legally I could have put it in [without the family's approval], but hey, I want to sleep at night. At the end of the day, it became a mother-son deal and they worked it out." In this case, the filmmaker's objective was maintaining the relationship and salvaging key footage.

The decision to share material in advance with subjects was, typically, an informal decision. Only one respondent, Jennifer Fox, said that she offered fine cut approval in a legal document, with the caveat that the subjects couldn't object to the film because they didn't like the way they looked but could object to things on the grounds of hurting their family.

A substantial minority of filmmakers argued that they would never allow a subject to see the film until it was finished. Their common reasoning was that doing so in any one case would set a precedent, delegitimize the film, and jeopardize the independent vision of the film. They argued that the responsibility to control the film's point of view lay squarely with the filmmaker. "No, I never show rough cuts to subjects. It's part of our work and our interpretation," said one. Another argued that letting subjects, especially celebrities or other people with social power, have input would threaten the credibility of the final product: "I don't think the film stays credible if subjects are approving their sound bites," said filmmaker Maggie Burnette Stogner. Another filmmaker said that while she would not show subjects the current work, she would show previous films she had made, as a way of gaining their trust.

Paying subjects

The question of whether to pay subjects was of great concern to filmmakers.

Filmmakers who thought of themselves as journalists resisted even the idea of payment. In journalistic practice, payment is usually forbidden for fear of tainting the information garnered. Jon Else said:

For years I never paid anyone for an interview. There is a huge danger that paying for talk will undermine the honesty of the talk, and that it will poison the river for the next filmmaker. Would you believe an interview with Dick Cheney if you knew he was paid a hefty honorarium? But I'm reconsidering, after seeing the good sense of Errol Morris' paying his subjects in Standard Operating Procedure. I have come around to believe that a small honorarium is OK, that we should cover the subject's expenses and lost work, and that we sure as hell should share profit if we can. This is an area that we haven't really worked out, where a big conversation needs to happen. It's one of those areas where our responsibility to our audience and our responsibility to our subjects can be at odds.

Many filmmakers believed that payment was not only acceptable but a reasonable way to address the power differential, even though payment often sufficed only to cover costs of participation.

An independent filmmaker said that his financially strapped subjects could see that "we had money to make the movie, and we were making money ourselves off their tragedy, at a time when they could not work because of dealing with [a difficult situation]." In this regard, many found institutional rules against payment to be arbitrary and even counterproductive. One filmmaker said "I might hire a scholar for a day to consult with me on a script, so why can't I pay a musician who's made little money and felt exploited by white people their whole life? What is the difference?" A cable TV producer argued that the ethical thing to do would be to pay subjects. "We have the money. We are spending $500 on a dinner for 5 people. Here this guy worked for five days and they get no glory, they go back to their regular jobs." The producer noted that the filmmakers work for a for-profit venture, and "we're making our money based on these people's stories . . . It's become an easy thing to do to say that we don't pay. But this is an excuse to keep the budget down."

At the same time, filmmakers sought to assess situations informally on a case-by-case basis. The filmmaker whose subjects were financially strapped did not talk about money in initial conversations, but a year later, when he was still filming, he offered his subjects a $5,000 honorarium. He chose to do this because the subjects had asked for money, and he felt that by then his access was not predicated on the payment, and that this was "an important gesture to make." Another filmmaker found subjects, who were immigrants, asking to borrow money, which she refused to do because she feared it would jeopardize her working relationship with them:"You cross the line, are you the filmmaker or their best friend in America? . . . It was awkward for them but I did not want to set a precedent."

Occasionally filmmakers even shared film profits with the subjects, although not as a contractual matter from the start. After Hoop Dreams became wildly successful, noted Gordon Quinn, Kartemquin Films shared profits (based on screen time) with everyone who had a speaking role in the film. It was the "right thing to do," he said, because it "was their lives, their stories that made it successful." The two central characters had equal shares with the three filmmakers.

Not everyone who paid did so in recognition of social inequality. One filmmaker sometimes paid because it was the easiest way to get the work done. "I usually say no, it's a conflict of interest, but sometimes you really want someone to do the interview." Another thought it was more a matter of cultural norms. "In London, people expect fees for interviews, etc., anytime you take up someone's time. It's an accepted norm to pay fees. In Egypt, I had a fixer who paid everyone as we went, that's the way they do things there. I remember negotiating with a bigwig, he was in demand, he said he'd like to do it, and requested a donation to a nonprofit. I wasn't comfortable with it but I did it. In that instance, I didn't feel it would affect what he was going to say."

Deception

Some filmmakers acknowledged that they occasionally would resort to bad faith and outright deception, both with subjects and with gatekeepers who kept them from subjects. In both situations, they used deception to keep someone with the power to stop the project from doing so, and they regarded it as entirely ethical because of an ends-justifies-the-means argument.

Filmmakers admitted to not telling the whole truth or concealing their motivation or their film's "true politics" to get access to a subject or to "get the scene you want to get." In one case, a filmmaker hid the fact from a political candidate that his film was about the opposing candidate. He justified it by the result: "Ultimately there is a story to be told, you may have to make these compromises. Hopefully you do it in a way that ultimately, with the finished product that I had a clear conscience. I may get in by a sneaky way but hold up standards in the final product." Another gained access to someone in prison by writing on BBC letterhead stationery, although he was not working for the BBC. He said, "I didn't have a [moral] dilemma. I had to do it." While some said that they would never lie to a subject about what they were doing in the film, many believed that the decision needed to be taken on a case-by-case basis, considering the goal of the film and the relationship with the viewer. They had fewer qualms about lying to public officials or to representatives of institutions than about lying to subjects.

VIEWERS: HONORING TRUST

Filmmakers also asserted a primary relationship to viewers, which they phrased as a professional one: an ethical obligation to deliver accurate and honestly told stories. This relationship was, however, much more abstract than the one with their subjects.

This second relationship became primary in the postfilming part of the production process. Filmmakers expected to shift allegiances from subject to viewer in the course of the film, in order to complete the project. "I have to be careful not to abuse the friendship with the subject, but it's a rapport that is somewhat false," said one. "In the edit room . . . you decide what your film is going to be, you have to put your traditional issues of friendship aside. You have to serve 'the truth.' " Another filmmaker unapologetically recalled alienating his subjects because he had, in the interest of the viewers and of his own artistic values, included frank comments that caused members of their own community to turn against them. Although the result was unintentional, he also felt no remorse. He is still in contact with his characters, but he admitted "they felt betrayed by [him] in some way." They had expected the filmmaker to protect them by not including comments they made and remembered making. Still another grappled with this issue in the editing room: "I was complaining to someone [that] I feel some allegiance to them, and the person said that at this point your only allegiance should be with the audience. That was really helpful to me. In that part, friendship wasn't helpful in making the film, even though it is during the production phase."

Filmmakers accepted significant manipulation of the situation in filming without regarding it as a betrayal of viewer expectations. They were fully aware that their choices of angles, shots, and characters were personal and subjective (a "POV," or point of view, was repeatedly referenced as a desirable feature of a documentary), and justified their decisions by reference to the concept "the truth." This concept was unanchored by validity tests, definitions, or norms. Rather the opposite, in fact: faced with evidence of or a decision for inaccuracy or manipulation, they often moved "the truth" to a higher conceptual level, that of "higher truth."

This "higher truth" or a "sociological truth" inadvertently invoked documentary pioneer John Grierson's description of documentary as a "creative treatment of actuality." Grierson used this flexible term to permit a wide range of actions and approaches ranging from re-enactment to highly selective storytelling-indeed, even outright government propaganda. His promotion of the term has been criticized, by scholar Brian Winston, among others, for allowing ethical choices to go unexamined. For Grierson, who incessantly strategized to garner government resources for documentary film, the phrase had strategic advantages. For today's documentary filmmakers, it appears to grace a set of choices about narrative and purpose in the documentary. It appears to justify the overall goal of communicating the important themes, processes, or messages within the (required) entertaining narrative frame, while still permitting the necessary distortions to fit within that frame and the flexibility to deal with production exigencies.

Filmmakers surveyed contrasted notions of a "higher truth" with concern for factual accuracy of discrete data, which they also valued but often regarded as a lower-level standard to meet. They spoke of making "a fair film and a truthful film," not necessarily one that would, for instance, make their subjects happy or their networks richer. Their goal was "to tell the story honestly, to try to keep as emotionally truthful as possible." They strove to represent "the truth of who [the subjects] are" or of what the story is.

Following were situations that called forth filmmaker concern about ethical relationships with the audience.

Framing and editing

Filmmakers were acutely aware of the implications of telling a story one way rather than another. One filmmaker's client hired her to make an educational documentary for middle school kids and to leave out the fact that Americans dropped the first atomic bomb. She pushed for inclusion. "They said it will be upsetting for children, and that the film's point is solely to talk about material science. I said, 'I don't care what you're talking about, we have to put it in there . . . .' First and foremost the kids' education is at stake. Then, it's got our company's name on it. We are a respected educational program provider, [and] we would have looked bad, disgraced by it."

Filmmakers expected to get to truth via the vehicle of a story and held themselves responsible for its implications. Narrative structure sometimes mandates manipulation, which they often but not always found uncomfortable. In one case, a filmmaker decided to withhold information about a public figure's drug addiction in order to create "the strongest cinematic experience. We want to build him up as a hero and show the fall."

The process of film editing-collapsing actual time into screen time while shaping a film story-involves choices that filmmakers often consider in ethical terms. Steven Ascher said:

You could argue that cutaways in a scene filmed with one camera are a distortion-you cut from a person talking to a reaction shot, condensing or reshuffling dialogue before you cut back to the person. But those kinds of distortions are often necessary to tell the story or to compress ideas that would otherwise take too long. Jump cuts might be more "honest" about the rearranging going on but might be unwatchable. Dialogue editing and reaction shots are necessary tools of documentary, and while sometimes manipulative, often fall under Picasso's idea of art as the lie that makes us realize the truth.

"When I'm working on a doc, I try not to lie," said Sam Pollard. "But that doesn't mean that I don't bend the truth. If you're a filmmaker you try to create a POV, you bend and shape the story to your agenda . . . Especially on a historical documentary, I keep to the facts. But if you want to really explore it, you have to shape and bend. It depends on the project."

Staging, restaging, and effects

Many filmmakers noted that restaging routine or trivial events such as walking through a door was part and parcel of the filmmaking process and was "not what makes the story honest." But many filmmakers went much further, without discomfort.

For instance, filmmakers also regularly used re-creations (re-staging of events that have already occurred, whether in the recent or distant past), although they widely believed that it was important that audiences be made aware somehow that the footage is recreated. Stanley Nelson said, "People have to know and feel it's a recreation. You have to be 99.9 percent sure that people will know." Some filmmakers also "stage" events to occur at a time convenient to the filming. One said that "as long as the activities they do are those they would normally be doing, if your filming doesn't distort their life... there is still a reality that is represented." Another recalled asking her subjects to stage an annual event earlier in the year than it would happen in real life:

I would not want to put words in people's mouth, or edit them in a way that's not leading to the larger truth. But I feel like it's important to get the big-picture truth of the situation on camera. The larger truth is that this conversation is going to happen in this city, at some point, and so it doesn't matter that it doesn't happen at this moment.

Video "sweetening," or adding in layers of sound, did not concern documentarians in general-if it was incidental. One said, "If you add birds chirping to facilitate the story, the birds are inconsequential to the audience misunderstanding the scene, it helps them enter the moment." However, a few noted that audio that changed the meaning-for instance, adding the sound of gunshots to a scene-was regarded as inappropriate. In general, documentary filmmakers tended to volunteer few comments about audio elements.

Use of archival materials

Treatment of archival materials (especially still and motion photographic materials) was widely recognized as a site of ethical challenges, but there was a wide range of responses. Filmmakers repeatedly referenced problems with using historical materials, which document specific people, places, and times, as generic references or in service to a particular and perhaps unrelated point.

Some filmmakers were adamant that only precisely accurate images should be used. One filmmaker said that she tries to be as authentic as possible, down to the year and the place. She said she was trained to think of archival this way, to think that as a filmmaker, "you put it out there as truth. Someone else will be culling footage from your film. If it's 1958 Manila . . . you have to be truthful." Louis Massiah reiterated this. "A good film often has many lives, and one of the lives is in educational institutions, within schools and libraries. The film becomes a historical document. So to use archival footage . . . inaccurately, for mood or tone, . . . not looking at archival footage as a document of a particular time and place, becomes problematic." Peter Miller noted that

the more fundamental questions are related to matters of life and death. With the Holocaust, you really don't want to show anything other than the exact day or place. [You have to be] obsessively careful. In a world where people deny the Holocaust, you don't want to give wind to that fire. And you want to be honorable.

Jon Else noted that he once changed a shot that appeared on a TV set in Sing Faster because it involved a Major League Baseball game, and he had determined that he could not license the footage. He said, "It's a rotten thing to have done journalistically. That is the most deliberate falsification I've ever done . . . My test for these things is, 'Does the audience know what it's getting?' "

Some filmmakers, however, were comfortable using "stuff that evokes the feel of the spot or the person or the subject matter." They believed it was acceptable when it helped the story flow without causing misunderstandings, and they did not believe in disclosure. "Saying 'this blurry figure is not our guy' would ruin the scene," said Peter Miller. "You use [the photo] with the knowledge that ultimately it's not important if it's your guy or not, what's important is the story." Another recalled:

[One subject] talks about his childhood, his family all died . . . he didn't have family photos. I at this point had a hobby of buying super 8 films at a flea market, found some home movies from the '50s of a family, it worked perfectly, a kid his age, house, it was perfect. I used it, and I'm sure 99 percent of the people who watched the film thought it was him and his family. In a certain sense there is something "deceptive" about that. There are purists who would feel that's not right. Ultimately I'm not of that position. I feel like I approached the subject differently. One struggles enough in making a good film.

Ken Burns recalled having to decide between two photographs to illustrate the point that Huey Long was often surrounded by bodyguards. One featured his typical bodyguards, in street clothes. Another featured uniformed guards-a one-time, exceptional moment. After discussion with his team and with professional historians, he decided for the atypical shot, because it communicated his point (that Long used bodyguards) more rapidly. "I sacrificed a little bit of accuracy. But did I? The reason we still talk about [this] is because it was a perfect ethical conundrum. It spoke to the possibilities as well. It made the film better. It did not compromise an ultimate truth."

CONCLUSION

This report reveals profound ethical conflicts informing the daily work of documentarians. The ethical conflicts they face loom large precisely because nonfiction filmmakers believe that they carry large responsibilities. They portray themselves as storytellers who tell important truths in a world where the truths they want to tell are often ignored or hidden. They believe that they come into a situation where their subjects, whether people or animals, are relatively powerless and they-as media makers-hold some power. They believe that their viewers are dependent on their ethical choices. Many even see themselves as executors of a "higher truth," framed within a narrative.

At the same time, they themselves are vulnerable in a wider media system. They constantly face resource constraints and often are trying to behave conscientiously within a ruthlessly bottom-line business environment. They sometimes deal with hostile gatekeepers or powerful celebrity subjects. Indeed, any subject's withdrawal of affection may result in denial of access to material in which the filmmakers have invested heavily.

When filmmakers face ethical conflicts, they often resolve them in an ad-hoc way, keeping their deep face-to-face relationship with subjects and their more abstract relationship with the viewers in balance with practical concerns about cost, time, and ease of production.

The ethical conflicts put in motion by these features of a filmmaker's embattled-truth-teller identity are, ironically for a truth-telling community, unable to be widely shared or even publicly discussed in most individual cases. Sometimes filmmakers are constrained by contract, but far more often they are constrained by the fear that openly discussing ethical issues will expose them to risk of censure or may jeopardize the next job.

Filmmakers thus find themselves without community norms or standards. Institutional standards and practices remain proprietary to the companies for which the filmmakers may be working and do not always reflect the terms they believe are appropriate to their craft. Their communities are far-flung, virtual, and sporadically rallied at film festivals and on listservs. Filmmakers need to share both experience and vocabulary and to be able to question their own and others' decision-making processes without encountering prohibitive risk.

Documentary filmmakers need a larger, more sustained and public discussion of ethics, and they also need safe zones to share questions and to report concerns. Any documentary code of ethics that has credibility for a field with a wide range of practices must develop from a shared understanding of values, standards, and practices. A more extended and vigorous conversation is needed in order to cultivate such understanding in this field of creative practice.
The Center for Media & Social Impact at American University, formerly the Center for Social Media, is an innovation lab and research center that studies, designs, and showcases media for social impact. The center is a project of the School of Communication, led by Jeffrey Rutenbeck, at American University in Washington, D.C.
Go to: Honest Truths (PDF)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Honest Truths: Documentary Filmmakers on Ethical Challenges in Their Work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Center for Social Media showcases and analyzes media for public knowledge and action-media made by, for, and with publics to address the problems that they share. We pay particular attention to the evolution of documentary film and video in a digital era. With research, public events, and convenings, we explore the fast-changing environment for public media.

# data[].attributes.body
Documentary is an effective way to express ideas and information about a certain culture, person or group of people. Rather than just create a fictional film, I have decided it would be more interesting and engaging for the target audience to view a creation that presented them with facts and real life examples. Our target audience are interested in learning more about Japan. By creating a documentary film, the viewers can learn more about the country and it's culture, as well as being entertained.

# data[].attributes.body
Providing a brief history lesson on written Japanese will give the audience a better understanding of how the characters came to be and where it originated from. Advising them on the history will add to the experience.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To adapt this character to the Japanese language, the writer might decide to ignore its meaning and use it for its sound alone, that is, to let it stand for words or parts of words that sound like "mao" in Japanese.

# data[].attributes.body
In developing an understanding of any culture, it is extremely important to see how their identity is represented or formed through the media. This website for BBC News, provides a list of links that are related to different forms of Japanese broadcasting. By seeing how they operate though radio, television and general delivery of their news and current events, it gives clear insight not just into current Japanese events, but also Japanese culture in how they are presenting these events through the media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Japan's broadcasting scene is technologically advanced and lively, with public and commercial media in keen competition.

Media freedom is constitutionally guaranteed, but Reporters Without Borders (RSF) says it has been in decline in recent years. The group says self-censorship is on the increase and many journalists are harassed by officials.

Five TV companies, including public NHK, run national terrestrial networks. Most of NHK's funding comes from licence fees. Many millions of viewers subscribe to satellite and cable pay TV.

News, drama, variety shows and sport - especially baseball - have big audiences. Imported TV shows are not widely shown, but Western influences are apparent in domestic TV fare.

The print sector is influential and highly trusted. National dailies sell in their millions, boosted by afternoon and evening editions. Some newspapers charge for online access.

Around 118 million people were online by 2017, comprising 94% of the population (InternetWorldStats). Line, co-developed between Japan and Korea, is by far the leading social and messaging application. Facebook and Instagram are widely used and Mixi is a home-grown social network.

The press

Asahi Shimbun - daily, English-language pages

Yomiuri Shimbun - daily, English-language pages

Mainichi Daily News - English-language pages

Nikkei Asian Review - English-language pages

The Japan Times - English-language

Television

NHK - public, operates General TV, Educational TV. NHK World is a global English-language network

TV Asahi - national, commercial

Fuji TV - national, commercial

Nippon TV (NTV) - national, commercial

Tokyo Broadcasting System (TBS) - national, commercial

Radio

NHK - public, operates news/speech-based Radio 1, cultural/educational Radio 2, classical music-based FM Radio, external service Radio Japan

Inter FM - Tokyo commercial music station

J-Wave - Tokyo commercial music station

Tokyo FM - Tokyo commercial network

TBS Radio - operated by Tokyo Broadcasting System

News agency/internet

Kyodo - English-language pages

Japan Today - online news, in English

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Japan's broadcasting scene is technologically advanced and lively, with public and commercial media in keen competition. Media freedom is constitutionally guaranteed, but Reporters Without Borders (RSF) says it has been in decline in recent years. The group says self-censorship is on the increase and many journalists are harassed by officials.

# data[].attributes.body
In order to educate a group of individuals on Japanese culture and customs, there needs to be an interactive side to the lecture as well. This quiz will help keep the audience engaged as well as helping them to remember and retain what they have learnt throughout the lecture.

# data[].attributes.body
This website provides some basic background information on some aspects of Japanese culture and traditions. Cultural research and the representation of different cultures needs to be carefully researched as it is subject to opinion. By finding a website that is reliable and credible, the more academically inclined members of the audience are likely to receive the information provided as truth. Accurate background research is essential to this convention as it is a key tool in educating others on Japanese culture. Also, because a lot of our understanding of culture comes from literary text, it is important to look at the assumptions these text make, in this case, about Japanese culture. The dominant representation of Japanese people and culture will be looked at in the lecture as well as a critique of these representations so the lecture is credible and balanced

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Government: Parliamentary with a constitutional monarchy

Prime Minister: Shinzō Abe (elected Dec 2012)

Capital: Tokyo

Population: 127,368,088 (July 2012 est.)

Population Growth Rate: -0.077% (2012 est.), World Rank: 198th

Birth Rate: 8.39 births/1,000 population (2012 est.), Worl Rank: 217th

GDP: 4.34 Trillion (2008)

Electric Power Generation: Conventional thermal (coal, oil, natural gas) 60%, Nuclear 29%, Hydroelectric 9%, Renewables 2%

Industries: Consumer electronics, motor vehicles, machine tools, steel, and nonferrous metals

Exports: Motor vehicles, semiconductors, and office machinery

Agriculture: Rice, sugar beets, vegetables, fruit, pork, fish

Currency: Yen

Life Expectancy: Average: 82, Male: 78.8, Female: 85.6

GDP per Capita: $33,800

Literacy Rate: 99%

Unemployment Rate: 4%

Oil imports: 5.425 million bbl/day

Internet Users: 87.5 million

Environmental Issues: Acid rain; Japan is the largest consumer of Amazon rainforest timber

Japan Geography

Japan is located in the North Pacific off the coast of Russia and the Korean peninsula. The area of Japan is 377,873km², which makes it slightly smaller in landmass than California. Japan consists of four main larger islands and over 4000 smaller islands. The main islands are Hokkaido, Honshu, Shikoku, and Kyushu. Honshu is the largest with an area of 231,000km². A modern railroad system connects the major islands and Japan's high-speed Shinkansen runs between major urban areas.

Japan is over 70% mountainous terrain with approximately 18% landmass suitable for human settlement. Japanese cities are typically sprawling and densely populated. Tokyo, a megalopolis and the capital of Japan, is located on Honshu island. Central Tokyo has a population of 12 million people, with the population of the Greater Tokyo Area estimated at over 35 million people.

The islands of Japan are located in an area known as the Pacific Ring of Fire. This area is where most of the world's earthquakes and volcanic eruptions occur. Japan is very seismically active with over 1,500 earthquakes per year. In 1923 the Great Kanto Earthquake killed more than 143,000 people in the Tokyo area. Tsunamis and volcanic eruptions are other natural destructive forces in Japan. In 2011 the Tōhoku Earthquake, also known as 3-11 (three-eleven) in Japan, was the most powerful earthquake known to have struck Japan.

Japan Population

There are over 127,078,679 (July 2009 est.) people living in Japan. For most of Japan's history, its borders were closed to foreigners. As a result, Japan's society is very homogeneous, composed of 98.5% ethnic Japanese. The remaining 1.5 percent are mostly Korean, who number around 1 million. There are also considerable numbers of Brazilians, Chinese, and Filipinos residing in Japan. There is also an ethnic minority of indigenous people, called Ainu, who live mostly in northern Hokkaido.

Japan Language

Japanese is the official language of Japan. Many Japanese also have some ability in writing and speaking English as it is a mandatory part of the curriculum in the Japanese educational system. Japanese uses four different writing systems; Kanji (Chinese characters), Hiragana (phonetic alphabet for native words), Katakana (phonetic alphabet for foreign words), and Romaji (the western alphabet used to write Japanese). Japanese vocabulary has been strongly influenced by loanwords from other languages, with most loanwords coming from Chinese and English.

Japan Climate

The climate of Japan varies considerably depending on the region and season. Summer is usually very hot and humid, known to the Japanese as "mushiatsui". From mid-June there is a rainy season which lasts around one month. Winters are usually mild, with the northern areas of Japan receiving more snow. Spring and autumn are usually sunny with mild temperatures.

Japan Religion

The two major religions in Japan are Shinto and Buddhism. While religion does not play a major role in the life of the average Japanese, religious ceremonies are usually held at births, weddings, and funerals. On New Year's Day visiting a temple or shrine is also a common custom. About 1% of the population follows Christianity, which was heavily persecuted in Japan prior to the Meiji Restoration in 1873.

World Heritage Sites in Japan

As of June, 2012 Japan has 12 cultural and 4 natural sites designated as World Heritage sites. You can find our top picks here: Best Sightseeing in Japan.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Facts about Japan | Interesting and Fun Information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Overview of Japan including interesting facts about Japan and a quick facts section.

# data[].attributes.body
Providing the right materials such as calligraphy pens and
proper paper to be able to try their hand at writing Japanese characters and providing templates for them to be able to practise before trying to write by
themselves will help them get a feel for the traditional way of writing the
characters while getting help to learn the right stroke order.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hiragana Writing Practice | Characters | Japanese-Lesson.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Downloadable/printable writing practice sheets (PDF) with grid lines for correct, beautiful handwriting of Japanese Hiragana alphabet

# data[].attributes.headline
Why is it important to understand culture?

# data[].attributes.subject
Why is it important to understand culture?

# data[].attributes.body
This article looks at why it is important to have an understanding of other cultures. It is from a website that discusses issues related to communication. While the article is aimed at citizens of the United States, the principles behind understanding different cultures are transferrable. In order to educate and build communities, which are generally quite diverse in cultures, there needs to be an understanding of the different cultures within our society-including Japanese culture.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Learn how to understand people's cultures, promote engagement with others, and build strong, diverse communities.

What is culture?

Why is culture important?

Why is understanding culture important if we are community builders?

What kind of cultural community can you envision for yourself?

Helpful Tips to Start Building a Diverse Community

What is culture?

As community builders, understanding culture is our business. No matter where you live, you are working with and establishing relationships with people--people who all have cultures.

What is culture? Here is one viewpoint.

"Culture" refers to a group or community which shares common experiences that shape the way its members understand the world. It includes groups that we are born into, such as race, national origin, gender, class, or religion. It can also include a group we join or become part of. For example, it is possible to acquire a new culture by moving to a new country or region, by a change in our economic status, or by becoming disabled. When we think of culture this broadly we realize we all belong to many cultures at once.

Do you agree? How might this apply to you?

Why is culture important?

Culture is a strong part of people's lives. It influences their views, their values, their humor, their hopes, their loyalties, and their worries and fears. So when you are working with people and building relationships with them, it helps to have some perspective and understanding of their cultures.

But as we explore culture, it's also important to remember how much we have in common. People see the world very differently, but they know what it is like to wake up in the morning and look forward to the adventures that of the day. We are all human beings. We all love deeply, want to learn, have hopes and dreams, and have experienced pain and fear.

At the same time, we can't pretend our cultures and differences don't matter. We can't gloss over differences and pretend they don't exist, wishing we could all be alike, and we can't pretend that discrimination doesn't exist.

This chapter will give you practical information about how to understand culture, establish relationships with people from cultures different from your own, act as an ally against racism and other forms of discrimination, create organizations in which diverse groups can work together, overcome internalized oppression, and build strong and diverse communities.

This section is an introduction to understanding culture, and will focus on:

What culture is

The importance of understanding culture in community building

Envisioning your cultural community

How to get started in building communities that encourage diversity.

But first, it is important to remember that everyone has an important viewpoint and role to play when is comes to culture. You don't have to be an expert to build relationships with people different from yourself; you don't have to have a degree to learn to become sensitive to cultural issues; and you don't have to be a social worker to know how culture has affected your life.

Why is understanding culture important if we are community builders?

The world is becoming increasingly diverse and includes people of many religions, languages, economic groups, and other cultural groups.

It is becoming clear that in order to build communities that are successful at improving conditions and resolving problems, we need to understand and appreciate many cultures, establish relationships with people from cultures other than our own, and build strong alliances with different cultural groups. Additionally, we need to bring non-mainstream groups into the center of civic activity. Why?

In order to build communities that are powerful enough to attain significant change, we need large numbers of people working together. If cultural groups join forces, they will be more effective in reaching common goals, than if each group operates in isolation.

Each cultural groups has unique strengths and perspectives that the larger community can benefit from. We need a wide range of ideas, customs, and wisdom to solve problems and enrich community life. Bringing non-mainstream groups into the center of civic activity can provide fresh perspectives and shed new light on tough problems.

Understanding cultures will help us overcome and prevent racial and ethnic divisions. Racial and ethnic divisions result in misunderstandings, loss of opportunities, and sometimes violence. Racial and ethnic conflicts drain communities of financial and human resources; they distract cultural groups from resolving the key issues they have in common.

People from different cultures have to be included in decision-making processes in order for programs or policies to be effective. The people affected by a decision have to be involved in formulating solutions--it's a basic democratic principle. Without the input and support of all the groups involved, decision-making, implementation, and follow through are much less likely to occur.

An appreciation of cultural diversity goes hand-in-hand with a just and equitable society. For example, research has shown that when students' cultures are understood and appreciated by teachers, the students do better in school. Students feel more accepted, they feel part of the school community, they work harder to achieve, and they are more successful in school.

If we do not learn about the influences that cultural groups have had on our mainstream history and culture, we are all missing out on an accurate view of our society and our communities.

As you think about diversity, it may be helpful to envision the kind of cultural community you want to build. In order to set some goals related to building relationships between cultures, resolving differences, or building a diverse coalition, it helps to have a vision of the kind of cultural community you hope for.

What kind of cultural community do you envision?

Can you imagine the kind of cultural community you want to live or work in?

People have very different views of what a multicultural society or community should be like or could be like. In the past few decades there has been a lot of discussion about what it means to live and work together in a society that is diverse as ours. People struggle with different visions of a fair, equitable, moral, and harmonious society.

How will the world be unified as a cohesive whole, if people separate into many different cultural groups?

In order to be a part of that dream, must I assimilate?

Why does racism persist in places that are committed to equality and liberty?

How can I protect my children from the harmful influences in the larger culture? How can I instill my children with the moral values of my own religion or culture, but still expose them to a variety of views?

Are there structural problems in our government or economic system that serve to divide cultural groups? How can they be changed?

Should I put my community building and civic energies into my own cultural community, rather than the mainstream culture? Where can I have the biggest influence?

Can oppression be stopped by legislation, or does each person have to overcome their individual prejudice, or both?

Why do immigrants have to hold onto their own cultures and languages?

If my group is excluded, what can I do?

How do I protect my children from being targeted by racism or sexism other forms of discrimination if I live in a diverse society? Shall I send them to culturally or racially specific school, or a female-only school, or another appropriate school?

If each person overcame their own prejudices, would all the divisions disappear?

How do I overcome my prejudices?

Is prejudice a thing of the past?

Why can't we all just get along?

What do you think about these questions? Which issues do you struggle with? What other issues are important to you or your cultural group?
As you envision the kind of diverse community, you and your neighbors may want to consider these kinds of questions. These are some of the real and tough questions that people grapple with on a daily basis. These questions point to some of the tensions that arise as we try to build harmonious, active, and diverse communities in a country as a complex as ours. There are no easy answers; we are all learning as we go.

So, what kind of community do you envision for yourself? How will diversity be approached in your community? If you could have your ideal community right now what would it look like? If you can't have your ideal community right now, what will be the next steps you will take in building the kind of cultural community you want?

Here are some questions that may help you think about your community:

Who lives in your community right now?

What kinds of diversity already exists?

What kinds of relationships are established between cultural groups?

Are the different cultural groups well organized?

What kind of struggles between cultures exist?

What kind of struggles within cultural groups exist?

Are these struggles openly recognized and talked about?

Are there efforts to build alliances and coalitions between groups?

What issues do different cultural groups have in common?

These are some of the questions that can get you thinking about your how to build the kind of community you hope for. What other issues do you think are important to consider? What are your next steps?

So, you may ask, "How do we get started?" Here are some ideas that will help you set the stage for creating your vision of a diverse organization or community.

Helpful tips to start building a diverse community

In the book, Healing into Action, authors Cherie Brown and George Mazza list principles that, when put into practice, help create a favorable environment for building diverse communities. The following guidelines are taken from their principles:

Welcome everyone.

In order for people to commit to working on diversity, every person needs to feel that they will be included and important. Each person needs to feel welcomed in the effort to create a diverse community. And each person needs to know that their culture is important to others.

Guilt doesn't work in fostering diversity.

Blaming people as a way of motivating them is not effective. Shaming people for being in a privileged position only causes people to feel bad; it doesn't empower them to take action to change. People are more likely to change when they are appreciated and liked, not condemned or guilt-tripped.

Treating everyone the same may be unintentionally oppressive.

Although every person is unique, some of us have been mistreated or oppressed because we are a member of a particular group. If we ignore these present-day or historical differences, we may fail to understand the needs of those individuals. Often people are afraid that recognizing differences will divide people from each other. However, learning about cultural differences can actually bring people closer together, because it can reveal important parts of each others? lives. It can show us how much we have in common as human beings.

People can take on tough issues more readily when the issues are presented with a spirit of hope.

We are bombarded daily with newspapers and TV reports of doom and gloom. People have a difficult time functioning at all when they feel there is no hope for change. When you present diversity issues you can say things like, "This is an excellent opportunity to build on the strengths that this organization has," or "There is no reason why we can't solve this problem together."

Building a team around us is the most effective way of creating institutional and community change around diversity issues.

You will be more effective if you have a group of people around you that works together closely. People often try to go it alone, but we can lose sight of our goals and then become discouraged when operating solo. It is important to take the time to develop strong relationships with a core of people, and then work together as a group.

Recognize and work with the diversity already present in what appear to be homogenous groups.

In working to combat racism and other forms of oppression many people become discouraged when they are unable to create a diverse group. Starting by recognizing differences in religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomics, parenting, and class backgrounds will help create a climate that welcomes differences; it will also lay the groundwork for becoming more inclusive.

In Summary

We've talked about what diversity is, why it is important, how to begin envisioning your ideal diverse community, and how to set up an environment that fosters diversity. This is only the beginning.

In working towards your diverse organization or community there is much more to do. In the next sections we will talk about how to become aware of your own culture, build relationships with from different cultures, become allies to people discriminated against, overcome internalized oppression, build multicultural organizations and coalitions, and other topics as well.

Each of us can build the kinds of communities we dream of. In our families, organizations, institutions, and neighborhoods, we can insist that we won't remain isolated from those who are different from ourselves. We can transform our neighborhoods, institutions, and governments into equitable, non-oppressive, and diverse communities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Section 1. Understanding Culture and Diversity in Building Communities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn how to understand people's cultures, promote engagement with others, and build strong, diverse communities. What is culture? Why is culture important? Why is understanding culture important if we are community builders? What kind of cultural community can you envision for yourself? Helpful Tips to Start Building a Diverse Community As community builders, understanding culture is our business.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why is it important to have a Japanese language teacher

# data[].attributes.subject
Why is it important to have a Japanese language teacher

# data[].attributes.body
Getting a professional Japanese language teacher in for the event will help make sure that what the audience learn is the correct written Japanese.  By having a professional teacher in, it will make sure they can learn the correct way of writing the Japanese characters and understanding each meaning. While also using online content to provide the ultimate learning experience so that everyone that attends can make sure they get the most out of the convention.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Classroom Resources - The Japan Foundation, Sydney

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Enrich your Japanese classroom with a collection of resources for all learners from The Japan Foundation, Sydney.

# data[].attributes.headline
Proffesional historians of Australia code of ethics:

# data[].attributes.subject
Proffesional historians of Australia code of ethics:

# data[].attributes.body
It is integral that when you are working professionally as a historian within Australia that you abide by the code of ethics and professional standards set forth the the association for the professional historians of Australia in order to ensure you maintain a high level of professionalism, integrity and scholarship.

# data[].attributes.headline
Background Research of Japanese history and culture:

# data[].attributes.subject
Background Research of Japanese history and culture:

# data[].attributes.body
For my research to be valuable to the convention, it needs to be both insightful and credible, whilst also being conveyed in a manner which is both captivating and educational. Historians today if they are to be taken seriously require either reputable credientials in regards to their work and contribution with the historic community. Or need to provide a level of research which has both depth, credible historians and references, to provide the validity and merit to the research that is required for it to be considered relevant and reliable. Due to this using the official Japanese government website as a resource which is highly reputable and makes reference to many respected academic works, historians and universities, is an effective way to ensure the research I am conducting and the information I am providing, is heavily cross referenced and ultimatley credible.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is the official website of the Government of Japan that introduces its policies regarding important issues such as economic growth and regional peace and security. You can also read its official magazines/publications, including "We are Tomodachi." It also has links to the websites of various ministries and agencies that provide more in-depth information.

# data[].attributes.body
Providing researched and factual information on Japanese culture is imperative in educating those in attendance of this cultural event, whilst also adding credibility to the convention.
Therefore my contribution to the convention includes researching the culture of Japan, along with giving a presentation on the historic aspects of Japanese cultural. My contributions will also include being an advisor to those giving presentations, writing articles and creating displays, to ensure we retain the credibility in our convention that my historic and cultural research provides.

# data[].attributes.body
This website, Global Education, explores strategies for education of younger demographics looking at the effectivity of displays along with interactive activities and websites.

# data[].attributes.headline
The importance of accurate information and credibility to a cultural convention: 

# data[].attributes.subject
The importance of accurate information and credibility to a cultural convention: 

# data[].attributes.body
This website addresses the value of historians in both historical and cultural research for for both institutions, agency and events such as this cultural convention.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Under the auspices of Professional Historians Australia, state and territory PHAs admit members in accordance with nationally recognised accreditation criteria and standards. Information about the national criteria and standards is available to download from this site.

# data[].attributes.body
This online article outlines some key points that can make a documentary film. The article states that high quality equipment is key to producing a high quality film. This is something that should be considered during pre production of the documentary as a high quality production will come across as professional. A professional looking production is more likely to engage the audience as the documentary and its information will seem more legitimate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What Will Move a Documentary Film to the Ranks of Greatness

What makes a good documentary film? The essential element of a good documentary is simply, the story. The audience must have an intellectual and emotional tie to the film. The audience must have a "pull" to get to the end of the film, not an excuse to get away from it.

The story must be found and that is not always easy. It's the single component that the film hinges upon. Once the story is identified, the filmmaker has to compose it accurately. It's not as easy as it sounds.

Here are some components of a good documentary film.

The people who wield the power, influence and information are identified and become a part of the film. The filmmaker must remain impartial and be open minded enough to present all sides of the story.

A well edited film allows for a more unprejudiced approach. Each person or subject that is identified brings a unique focus to the film and requires a voice that is impartially heard.

A good documentary raises more questions than answers. There is a myth that a good documentary film serves as proof or the ultimate explanation of something. Even if audience members are left pondering at the end of the film credits, that can be an excellent outcome.

Film tells the truth even though the people in documentaries do not always do so. It is not necessary that they are publically called out during the film. Good documentaries can contrast content from many sources. The viewer serves as the juror. In well made documentaries the camera is the great truth teller. The viewer is able to easily figure out who is telling the truth. And in serving as a juror the viewer is often spellbound to the screen.

Once the story, structure and interviews are set the filmmaking process must be considered. The technical qualities of a film can move it from the great to the forgettable ranks.

There are a variety of elements which are required among the documentaries of greatness.

The filmmaker will need to have high quality technical equipment which includes microphones, video camera, and editing equipment. Professional technicians are the best bet if a true film of quality is the desired outcome.

Live action shots are imperative to a good documentary. It shows scenes as they are actually happening in real time. These shots will serve as evidence of truth or deceit for the film's viewers.

Still shots serve as filler between scenes. They are important to good documentaries because they do serve as credible transitions between live action and interviews. They are never to be considered "fluff" filler but should be relevant people, information or places.

The soundtrack or music is very important. It sets the tone for a good documentary. The right music must be chosen and then edited by musical editor. This moves the documentary film one step closer to greatness.

Finding the story, assembling the team, filming and editing are all part of the process that makes a documentary successful. The devil can be in the details, so along the way these questions should always be asked, "Are we still pulling on the viewer?" "Are they still sitting in their seats spellbound?" If the questions can be answered with a yes; the documentary film is well on its way to excellence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What Will Move a Documentary Film to the Ranks of Greatness What makes a good documentary film? The essential element of a good documentary is simply, the story. The audience must have an intellectual and emotional tie to the film.

# data[].attributes.body
This is an online version of a newspaper article, written by a journalist from Chicago tribune. The article talks about similar topic, regarding Japanese culture and could be helpful for our group project, where an older demographic is targeted from the print newspapers which would hence broaden our target audience range.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fortunately for our trade imbalance, the Japanese have no plans to import the stuff; but if you love their cars, wait until you taste their corn on the cob.

``When I`m wearing my food, you can tell it`s good,`` Virginia Louis said between napkin wipes Friday night at the Midwest Buddhist Temple`s 36th annual Ginza Holiday in Old Town.

``Ancient Japanese recipe. It`s called, cook it over charcoal,`` said Rev. Ronald Miyamura, a former temple minister, and one of the organizers of the Japanese festival. ``Really, I don`t think we do anything different than the Wisconsin State Fair, but it`s very popular. We can run out of chicken teriyaki, we can out of noodles, but if we run out of corn, we`ll hear about it.``

And running out of chicken is a possibility, given the long line assembled before the smoke-spewing, 20-foot-long teriyaki grill. The three-day event, running through 8 p.m. Sunday, usually attracts 10,000 people, Miyamura said.

Unlike the $1 per ear butter-drenched corn, there is an acknowledged trick to the chicken, which sells for $5. Those members of the 200-family congregation volunteering as chefs parboil it in teriyaki sauce before grilling, Miyamura revealed. ``We really started to do it years ago for speed,`` he said. ``Now people expect it.``

Rounding out the menu are sushi ($3.50), udon (Japanese noodles in fish broth, $2) and kintoki (a Japanese snow cone flavored with sweet beans, which tastes better than it sounds for $1.50).

The festival, expected to raise $25,000 for the temple at 435 W. Menomonee St., offers more than just food, though. Japanese culture, as well as cuisine, is celebrated here.

On a stage set up next to the temple, classical folk dances, taiko (drum) and various martial arts performances are scheduled throughout the weekend. Nearby, six waza (master) craftsmen from Tokyo busily demonstrate the 250-year-old Edo Period crafts of calligraphy and making wooden toys, silk flowers and Ichmiatsu dolls. Inside the temple`s social hall, the arts of sumie (brush painting), origami (paper folding), flower arranging and bonsai are illustrated.

A donation of $2.50 is requested; accompanied children under 12 are admitted free. Call 312-943-7801.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Japanese Culture And Cuisine Rule The Night At Ginza Holiday

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fortunately for our trade imbalance, the Japanese have no plans to import the stuff; but if you love their cars, wait until you taste their corn on the cob. ``When I`m wearing my food, you can tell it`s good,`` Virginia Louis said between napkin wipes Friday night at the Midwest Buddhist Temple`s 36th annual Ginza Holiday in Old Town.

# data[].attributes.body
It is important to maintain accurate, fair and respectable coverage. It is therefore, beneficial to look at the Journalists’ code of ethics to double-check on certain things. Particuarly when reporting on different cultures, there must be correct spelling of foreign names and/or reporting on specific cultural issues must be correctly executed.

# data[].attributes.body
The online company Kawaii Philippines wrote an article on their website promoting a Japanese cultural convention, Within the article there is a link to the event's webpage , a hash tag for users to follow as well as options to share the article via social media. This could be useful in targeting a younger demographic via the social media, while our group could also contact websites to help promote the event.

# data[].attributes.body
As a part of this Japanese Cultural Convention, I will be running a lecture outlining the main aspects of Japanese culture. A lecture will provide an academic, interactive opportunity to explore and discover Japan and its traditions. For those who will be attending the event, providing an academically credible account on aspects of Japanese culture through different forms of media is very important in educating people who want more insight into this area. With this in mind, my contribution to the event will be to present an accurate lecture on Japanese culture, grounding the lecture in reliable research and texts. In the lecture there will be teaching on not just current Japanese culture, but how Japanese people are represented and how their society came to be the way it is today.

# data[].attributes.body
Across the world, different countries and cultures create different ways of communication, and an important medium of communication is writing. Creative Writing can relay information and history while telling an interesting story. It can take information and culture that was once only accessible through word of mouth and preserve that information for generations to come. Japan has a very rich culture, and I've decided to contribute to this event through showcasing samples of iconic Japanese stories, legends and creative pieces. These samples will help our Australian audience to appreciate Japanese creativity; it will shed light on this culture and reveal both similarities and differences in our own forms of creative writing and theirs.

# data[].attributes.body
There are many differences in culture, history, conventions, taboos, spoken courtesies and mannerisms between countries. My role in the Convention is to provide an interactive talk on the common phrases and courtesies in Japan, as well as what to avoid saying and/or doing. My presented talk would involve tasks and activities for the audience to participate in; things such as: greeting one another through verbal and non-verbal means, asking questions in Japanese, and understanding patterns in speech.

# data[].attributes.body
Discipline: Creative Writing

# data[].attributes.body
With any sort of cultural or language convention, there
should be a part that includes more information about the language to help give the audience an idea of how the Japanese language works and why it is such an important part of Japanese lives.  So I have decided to contribute to the event by having a session on Japanese written language. It will help the audience get a better understanding of written
Japanese and teach them the right way to write the characters.

# data[].attributes.body
Discipline: Japanese

# data[].attributes.body
Discipline: Japanese

# data[].attributes.body
Discipline: Literary and Cultural studies

# data[].attributes.body
Discipline: History

# data[].attributes.body
Documentary film can open an audience's eyes to new information

they were never aware off and allow audience's to become emotionally engaged with the people and events in the documentary.

I have decided to contribute a documentary film depicting life in Japan during the 21st century. The documentary will engage viewers with the Japanese way of life that is not clouded by stereotypes or western perspectives and provide event attendees with an insightful view into the cultural differences between Japan and Australia.

This documentary will include interviews, ...

# data[].attributes.body
Discipline: Screen Arts

# data[].attributes.headline
Why is it important to promote an event through the media? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Why is it important to promote an event through the media? 

# data[].attributes.body
This website explains why publicity is essential for the success of an event and it could act as a checklist, to ensure that the group has exercised all possible ways of promoting the event.

# data[].attributes.body
An event will only be successful if it has successful promotion through the media, because without this an event risks losing participation in the cause of the event can occur.

Hence, my contribution to the event will be through a series of written newspaper articles in magazines, the newspaper and online through blog posts and on social media such as Twitter that will help promote the event. I will also be in charge of photographing images that will showcase what to expect such as who is talking and what the overall Convention setting will look like.

# data[].attributes.body
Discipline: Journalism

# data[].attributes.body
We have chosen a Convention that will showcase Japanese culture to our target audience as educated Western families.  Our Convention will include talks regarding the Japanese history, how to write and pronounce the language as well as a documentary/film showcasing Japan.

We chose this project because of the large amount of members who already have some background knowledge of Japanese culture established through their studies.