| 'The only way for Japan to progress is to abolish Japanese culture in favour of multiculturalism'. ... is how many people in the other parts of the world would view that position. Maybe it's hard to understand for 'New World' people, who don't really have a sense of their own ethnicity, but it's very different elsewhere. 'Japan' is not so much a 'nationality' in the modern, Western sense. 'Japan' is the place where the 'Japanese' live. The 'nation' of Japan is a legal construct around an ethnic group. While I agree some degree of openness will definitely help the 'GDP' and on some other measures, it's important to grasp that other people will see it differently. In new 'New World' - we generally focus on culturally secular measures, such as 'the GDP' i.e. a benchmark for the economy, which 'helps everyone' - and it avoids difficult socio-cultural arguments. But almost everywhere else it's not like that. I live in Quebec - and the Quebecois are an 'ethnic group' - and so politics here is totally different. We have state-sponsored child care for example - partly due to the very socialist political perspective, but partly because of the coherence of the community: it's really easy to get others to grasp the social benefits. They naturally seem themselves as part of a community, at least more so than the Anglo universe. |
Why do you think more non-Japanese people in the country means the end of Japanese culture? I know many foreigners who live long-term in Japan and have absorbed many ways of working in the society. Why do you think they stay?
Ultimiately, the base belief behind the anti-multicuturalism position is that culture cannot/will not be learned.
Think about the trope of all the people moving to the US for the American Dream. Have they not accepted American culture? People move place for reasons beyond economics.
I think your example is more a case of the Protestant work ethic coming into play (people should help themselves)