Hacker News Reader

> But would Japan be Japan when Japanese culture is replaced by an admixture of foreign cultures?

Is Japan of 1950 also Japan of 2050? Its a sort of ship-of-Theseus issue, but when we recognize that cultures evolve, grow, mix, adapt, and continually become something wonderful, it's less of a concern in my mind.

> Tibetans are better off with the lesser dictatorship of the CCP over the theocracy of a Dalai Lama.

Oof, I doubt this is anywhere close to true given the treatment of minority groups under CCP policy. Sovereignty, forcibly taken, is rarely an improvement and is detrimental both to the people whose sovereignty was taken and to the people who took the sovereignty. Much better to engage in economic trade and diplomacy.

Right, but this is internal change and evolution rather than externally influenced. Japan is a high trust society. They are cohesive. That would change.

Remember monocultures (as in one world monoculture) are not ideal? That we aspire to celebrate differences? Eventually, we'll have a homogenized world culture --that is not something I'd like to see. I prefer there being many different cultures with their OWN idiosyncrasies and ways of life.

> That would change.

Therefore, what?

> Is Japan of 1950 also Japan of 2050? Its a sort of ship-of-Theseus issue

Is a house the same house if your tear it down and build a factory?

> but when we recognize that cultures evolve, grow, mix, adapt, and continually become something wonderful, it's less of a concern in my mind.

It should be noted that's the opinion of Western liberals, who are pretty culturally imperialistic and expect and demand that other cultures adopt their values and adapt to their preferences.

The house argument is silly when applied to Japan of all places, which is known for frequently doing demolish-and-rebuild for wooden construction. Even one of the famous castles.

>> Is a house the same house if your tear it down and build a factory?

> The house argument is silly when applied to Japan of all places, which is known for frequently doing demolish-and-rebuild for wooden construction. Even one of the famous castles.

You misunderstood what I said, read it again. Is a factory the same house, if it was built on the same plot of land? It's an entirely different thing, and it's just nonsensical to bring up ship-of-Theseus in a case like that.

> It should be noted that's the opinion of Western liberals

No, it's my personal opinion and observation.

Synthesis of external influence is unavoidable -- people being people -- and paradoxically faster when formally made verboten. Else why does China have a Great Firewall (proves external influence is attempted to be avoided) to prevent cultural intrusion and a massive flow of graduate students expatriating (evidence of the paradox)?

A culture can avoid or embrace. It's not a normative "Western Liberal" value called out, it's a positive acknowledgement of human behavior.

> Synthesis of external influence is unavoidable -- people being people

Yeah, but that's not what's being discussed here, which is the importation of literal foreign people (immigration) in order to keep declining population numbers up, which is quite different. Immigration is a solution that strongly reflects Western liberal ideas and priorities.

> which is the importation of literal foreign people (immigration) in order to keep declining population numbers up, which is quite different.

I disagree. Especially in modern times, immigrants moving somewhere else (i.e. exercising their natural right and freedom to move elsewhere) is a difference of degree of external influence, not a difference of kind.

Thus, in scope for discussion.

Nations also have the right to self-determination and may opt to not subsidize population growth deficits through the importation of a population. Japan gets to decide. They may decide then want to assimilate with China (or Philippines), or they may decide they want to remain natively Japanese. That's their call.

> Nations also have the right to self-determination

Where do these states gain these rights? Divine investiture? Might makes right? Inertia? What is is not what could be.

Via representative government. Even promoted by Lenin himself.

Thus, in your view, might-makes-right is a proper policy? Pull up the ladder before anyone else can get in the treehouse?

I'm unconcerned with what Lenin thought, personally.

It’s not might makes right. The people who form a government and have jurisdiction through democratic government have the right to govern and be governed according to the rules they agree upon democratically.

They’re not pulling up any ladder. They made the country for themselves. Others can make their own to their own liking as well.

W/re Japan, it would be overwhelmed by Chinese, if they just let anyone in. China is big and strong enough for them to take care of their own people without needing to colonize Japan.

> The people who form a government and have jurisdiction through democratic government have the right to govern and be governed according to the rules they agree upon democratically.

Which attempts to abrogate the right to free association and movement. "People vote with their feet" is a truism that applies here as well, in my view.

> They made the country for themselves.

When did Japan first incorporate? Long before the lifetime of the current population.

> Others can make their own to their own liking as well.

Where? What if three or four Japanese people want to declare an open border, making their own to their own liking? This principle falls apart.

> W/re Japan, it would be overwhelmed by Chinese, if they just let anyone in. China is big and strong enough for them to take care of their own people without needing to colonize Japan.

Therefore, what?

So you're opposed to democracy then?

Strange flex to connect right to determination and hating democracy. We live in interesting times.

You specifically said you don't think people should have a right to protect their own land or have any kind of self-determination, and that outsiders should be forced upon them whether they like it or not. Therefore, you're opposed to democracy and are in favor of authoritarianism. Interesting times indeed.

> Thus, in scope for discussion.

If it is, you're being too fuzzy about it in a way that makes claims that are simply not true. Specifically, some "synthesis of external influence" may be "unavoidable," but that does not mean immigration, especially legal immigration, is unavoidable. Embracing immigration is a policy choice the Japanese can decide not to make, even if Western liberals really disagree with the choice.

I'm confused why you are describing a Venn diagram where Japan is in one circle and the vaguely defined "Western liberals" are the complement.

Yes, the current administrators of Japan can set a governance policy on who it attempts to allow to go through "approved" channels. Enforcing it, and especially attempting to enforce it to prevent, what I believe would be fair to summarize your prior comments, cultural contamination, won't work for the cause I've already mentioned: synthesis of external influence.

> But would Japan be Japan when Japanese culture is replaced by an admixture of foreign cultures

See the United States and Canada

Xenophobia is both Japan’s strength and weakness

I don't think Japan "fears" foreigners. They just want to live their own lives without foreign influence. They like doing things their own way at their own pace.

That’s the same thing. They feel that their culture is too weak to assimilate foreigners

That does not make sense. When the Normans took over England over the decades they replaced the local culture and upset the language. It's not that England was "too weak" it's that the numbers meant the local culture would be absorbed. We can say the same about Taiwan after the '49 revolution and how it lost its Austronesian identity now it's mostly a Han culture.

Modernization has similar effects but locals can modernize in their own way rather than import wholesale a new culture (India vs China).

All of the examples that you’ve cited are just examples of “melting pots”. Culture wasn’t destroyed. It simply evolved. To my knowledge, the English do not speak a dialect of French

Even if culture was destroyed, I don’t see it as a bad thing. Different languages and cultures are a barrier to empathy and historically it’s been a leading cause of conflict and violence. It’s too easy to “other” people whom you can’t communicate easily with

Preserving culture at all costs for its own sake is backwards and it prevents progress

>Preserving culture at all costs for its own sake is backwards and it prevents progress

I dunno. Lots of groups even within the US lament their culture being overrun by US pop-culture or mainstream culture. Are these people wrong and counter-productive?

A sub-culture is not the same as culture. Ultimately, these groups are still American at the end of the day. Still, if the price of losing culture reduces the probability of conflict, I will gladly pay it.

Japan is already heavily "admixed" with US culture as a result of a .. situation that developed not necessarily to their advantage.

I don't think culture is "replaced" in any country that we've seen extended immigration too.

Exactly. People love uniqueness of cultures etc — but if there’s tons of mixing due to trying to hit “growth” standards of the modern capitalist world… every nation will end up the same mix of random people. Losing culture and replacing it with mono-consumerism.