No dog in this race but, as an outsider, it's always seemed really odd that some countries (Japan sticks out) are allowed to prioritize cultural preservation but European countries are not.
Where EU countries (I know this excludes the UK but it didn't for a long time) allow easy long-term immigration by EU policy. Even with Brexit, I don't think that culture of easy immigration is going to just up and disappear. So having a culture and/or policy of easy immigration alongside "well, actually, not those guys" where "those guys" includes anybody who's not already culturally/ethnically part of the nation is, minimally, counter-productive and perhaps a bit hypocritical.
Hasn’t been correct for at least the past decade, if you post here there’s a good chance you would be able to relocate to Japan and have permanent residency within 1-3 years.
Japan has one of the most generous immigration policies in the developed world at the moment.
can we clarify... by whom? just kidding :) whether a country is "allowed" to do something is probably a red herring.
spitballing here, i think folks who engage in criticism of ethnonationalism are most likely to criticize the ethnonationalism they see close to home, as opposed to what might be happening on the other side of the planet.
there are valid critiques of japan's treatment of its nondominant ethnicities, and lots of anecdotal experiences covering the same, but it's a lot easier to discuss the nuances of an issue like this when you're more intimately familiar with the culture and sociopolitical history of a region.
In Canada here, we have land acknowledgements and it's politically correct to say we stole the land and should give it back to the natives. Then when native Europeans want to keep their land, it's white supremacy...
It's a very obvious double standard.