During my investigations, some Burakumin have told me, “Don't say Buraku.” They were individuals who preserved their distance from the BLL. They believed in the legend that their ancestors were descendants of, for example, enslaved samurai, and they have worked diligently to educate themselves to eliminate the given stigma. In some cases, similar legends have been passed down to the non-Buraku communities. The chief priest of Buddhist Temple to which some Burakumin belonged has also told me that he believed Burakumin were the descendants of the royalty. I do not question whether these legends were historical fact. I, however, think it is significant that they have believed so.

More importantly, I was made aware of the Burakumin’s reality when they said, “Don't say Buraku.” As I have mentioned several times in my paper, or this website, this is because those who are now called ‘Burakumin’ have never named and called themselves ‘Burakumin’. As Midori Kurokawa has revealed, the wars ‘Buraku and Burakumin’ take on a new connotation in 1907 officially illegally, and suddenly.

Jacques Derrida further criticized Levi Strauss's self-criticism as stated in The Sad Tropics. Derrida said that the real violence in the violent incident of speaking the child’s name was that there was “a first violence to be named” to the child. Derrida defined this as the ‘arche-violence’. Supporting this logic, I will be able to designate the invention of the language of ‘Buraku’, itself, as “arche-violence.”

In turn, since the Zenkoku Suiheisha has been established, it is probably true that the BLM shifted the meaning of ‘Buraku’ from a lowly symbol to a symbol of pride. This may be because there was no other word to represent the self other than “Buraku” which was a value-shifting term. It is not to say that Burakumin should create another word that identifies themselves now, but to say that there was an ‘arche -violence’ of naming at the beginning of the 20th century, and that that heavy blow constitutes the current situation.