also did you mean to imply that culture is essentially tied to ethnicity? because it isn't.
Is the culture thinking being a X is race based or is it based on a way of life, or both?
At least back in the 80s and 90s, my US education and history books say that America is the melting pot of the world, and ideally not race based, but based on the idea of personal and religious freedom. USA as we know now began as a country of immigrants - so by definition, yes, USA still stands regardless of race and ethnicity.
Whereas, the older countries having a more homogeneous race, ethnicity, and culture, that question is a lot fuzzier.
Multiculturalism has long become one of the defining characteristics of the US.
Japan (and frankly, many other countries) are indeed ethno-states.
Edit: well, it was.
You’re tiptoeing dangerously near some very questionable ethnic/racial arguments.
Now the Japanese’s own sense of identity/culture? It’s a deeply personal and subjective matter. But national boundaries? Not at all.
country kŭn′trē noun 1) A nation or state. 2) The territory of a nation or state; land. 3) The people of a nation or state; populace. 4) The land of a person's birth or citizenship. 5) A region, territory, or large tract of land distinguishable by features of topography, biology, or culture. 6) An area or expanse outside cities and towns; a rural area. 7) The people of a district who are eligible for jury service.
nation nā′shən noun 1) A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country. 2) The territory occupied by such a group of people. 3) The government of a sovereign state. 4) A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality. 5) A federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans. 6) The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe.
Japan is a country with boundaries that most of the world agrees on. There is nothing innate about its location or composition.
Is he ? What's so dangerous about liking homogenous cultures and homogenous races ?
I don't want to assume too much about you, but this smells like the usual progressive tendency to glorify population-importing immigration and taboofy any discussion of it that views it in negative or critical light. There is nothing wrong about disliking foreigners on one's own land, just like there is nothing wrong about disliking guests in one's own house.
That is a massive leap from what I said. I really need you to point out where I “glorified” anything.
> There is nothing wrong about disliking foreigners on one's own land
When you put it that way…yeah something definitely sounds wrong.
The commenter you replied was questioning if a nation could maintain it's character after wholesale replacement of it's population by other people, and you said yes, and implied that thinking otherwise is dangerous.
>yeah something definitely sounds wrong
What is that something ? If I own a car or a house, I can control who gets inside that car or house, and I can exclude people on whatever basis I like, including race and culture. This is not ideal, but that's the reality. Changing it is likely to be extremly hard and violent.
A country is "owned" by it's population, if a substantial majority of it's population don't want to let certain people into it, why is that such a problem ? Do you think those same people who want to immigrate would welcome a country's worth of people into their own land, if that were to happen ? Nearly every single culture in existence values itself more than others, and feels threatened when it's numbers decrease in relation to another.
Just like Japan of 2020 is not the same as Samurai Japan of medieval times. Times change, societies change, demographics change. That is just the way things are. It's better to harness it than to reject it to the detriment of progress. See: The story of America becoming a superpower.
Hard to take a comment that starts with this seriously.