[zuzululu]

None of this should be surprising unless you've been just gobbling up whatever you heard through mainstream media.

Britain is at a breaking point. There are existential questions to be asked:

Is Britain British without British Bourgeoisie that have lived there for thousands of years with new arrivals that have no commmon culture or connection to the land?

Can Japan be called Japan without Japanese that have lived there for thousands of years and their homogeneous identity?

Why is it okay for one but not the other? Where does this double standard come from ?

The fact is the loudest voice in the room so far has never been representative of the answer to the above questions.

[anigbrowl]

These questions aren't comparable. Japan had a crash modernization followed by a brief outburst of violent colonialism, which they thought was the style at the time but was actually in decline almost everywhere else.

Britain had an empire that lasted hundreds of years, and whose greatest legacy is linguistic and temporal system dominance. Having spent centuries proclaiming itself to be the literal center of civilization to most of the world, is it really surprising that ambitious individuals gravitate toward it? This is the common culture that Britain set out to impose on its possessions.

It's especially ironic (though not especially surprising) that immigration from former territories went way up after Britain forcibly detached itself from the EU. Perhaps the Brexiteers wil offer to secede from the world next - build a national space program and launch Britain into orbit as a second satellite that can service its markets while orbiting the planet from a distance.

[10xDev]

The comparisons between the two nations are always superficial. When you peel the layers of nonsense off, it is just white supremacy with a mediocre attempt at masking it.

[applfanboysbgon]

> which they thought was the style at the time but was actually in decline almost everywhere else.

I truly hate the historical revisionism of Westerners. Japan engaged in colonialism because it was an active victim of colonialism, and the only way to fight back was to stand on equal footing. Through the 1800s~1940s, Europe controlled nearly the entirety of Asia. China had been subject to countless treaties forced upon it. The Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma, India were all colonies. 90% of Africa was under European control. 100% of both Americas was under European control. 100% of Australia and New Zealand was under European control. Europeans were literally aiming for world domination. The list of countries free from European colonialism could be counted on one hand: Japan (only because it successfully fought back), Korea (before it got annexed by Japan), Siam, Nepal, Iran pretty much covers it. Yet amazingly Europeans found and continue to find no shortage of pearl clutching over Japan daring to do the same thing they did, in a dog-eat-dog world where not doing so meant becoming another pawn.

To the extent colonialism declined, it was solely due to to the world wars wrecking Europe so utterly they could not maintain their overseas holdings, + the untouched US intervening in eg. Suez Crisis in order to assert itself as the global Western hegemon with no peers.

[anigbrowl]

It's not historical revisionism, it's my desire to not write multiple paragraphs explaining the much briefer period of Japanese colonialism when the main point I wanted to make was about the British empire. By the time Japan launched its invasion of Manchuria the end of European colonialism was already in sight; Ireland had freed (mos of) itself from British domination a decade earlier, Gandhi had led the salt march in India the previous year and so on.

Yet amazingly Europeans found and continue to find no shortage of pearl clutching over Japan daring to do the same thing they did, in a dog-eat-dog world where not doing so meant becoming another pawn.

This is the exact opposite of how I feel about it. It was natural for Japan to emulate its geopolitical competitors, they just timed it poorly, overlooked the gradually rising tide of decolonization, and allowed the army in Manchuria too much leeway, culminating in atrocities that continue to haunt their foreign relations today.

[rubyn00bie]

Having a storied history, culture, and customs go beyond simple birthright citizenship and xenophobic behavior to enforce said culture and sense of identity. The US, for all its faults, exemplifies how unnecessary it is to rely solely on where you were born— anyone can move to the US, get citizenship, and call themselves “American.” I honestly cannot understand what “connection with the land” even means in reality. Most people aren’t farmers, and land has no inherent culture. People do, and culture is acquired by living in it and participating in it. Culture also changes overtime and is, like the earth itself, for the living.

This idea that for some reason other human beings cannot embrace, be a part of, and contribute to existing culture simply because they were born in a different country is flagrantly absurd. It’s also how people who are born somewhere, but don’t “look the part” have to fight an uphill battle to prove they are.

So yeah, Japan could be called Japan if people who live there are culturally Japanese, participate in shared culture, and contribute to it. I am also absolutely aware that isn’t possible by any reasonable means currently, but it doesn’t change the fact it should be.

[moomin]

Objectively, Japan needs to do something about its culture. It’s literally killing the country.

Pretty sure a Japanese person could say the same thing about the U.K.

[HoldOnAMinute]

There would need to be a mental and cultural framework where the old ways are loved, respected and allowed to be mourned.

[moomin]

I don’t really know what it would look like, it would have to be up to the Japanese, but I think you’re correct that this would be essential.

[nephihaha]

Japan is doing something. It is decades behind Europe but going down a similar path.

[hinata08]

>with new arrivals that have no commmon culture or connection to the land

actually Britain still see these arrivals. Brexit restored immigration from people with more walks of life and with a more worldwide origins. There is no fast track for any nationality, like when EU citizens didn't need a visa, so companies are blind to origin.

You only got rid of the maudzits français / stronzo francese who liked the queen way too much and feel at home everywhere. The Québécois, the Swiss, the Dutch and a part of Europe look at Britain as an example for that : it's so funny to see them struggle with the UK ETA app while they no longer have Tyrrells crisps, as they keep complaining about british food and were mean about the tapestry anyway.

But was this show worth the losses that Britain had ?

It's never too late to apply again, Britain hasn't deviated from its course of rule of law and democracy

[socalgal2]

Great Radiolab on this topic

https://radiolab.org/podcast/americanish-2306

It's also fun to watch people's heads explode over the hypocracy pointed out by this episode. Short version: If Samoa has to follow non-racial discrimination rules than Samoa as a place of Samoans will cease to exist. Without taking a side, the same is true of Israel.

[hiddencost]

Easy question with an easy answer that threatens a lot of bad people: immigrants are good.

[nephihaha]

Immigrants are people. People are not automatically good. Or bad.

Migration is not just a choice between an open door and a closed door, but a spectrum. There are a variety of levels between those two extremes.

[slashdev]

That’s way too simplistic.

Not all immigrants are good. Many cost society more than they contribute. The right kind of immigrants are good.

[josefritzishere]

Pretty much all immigrants are good, or at least good for something. People generally want or need all the same things. Xenophobia by and large is an irrational urge.

[mrguyorama]

Paint me this picture of an immigrant who costs more than they contribute.

[delichon]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GRkMGTgX0AEFhVp.png

This is for Denmark.

https://inquisitivebird.substack.com/p/the-effects-of-immigr...

[Arodex]

I am sure that Denmark, a country that amongst other things imposed forced sterilisation against the Inuit population up until the 1970s, and abused people with disabilities [0], is offering black-skinned people equal opportunities and not pigeon-holing them into unemployment and social exclusion...

[0]https://www.dw.com/en/denmark-apologizes-for-abuse-of-people...

[WithinReason]

There is a similar analysis from the Netherlands

[gambiting]

I mean, it's not particularly difficult to imagine(and I'm an immigrant to the UK). You move here, then after a while you bring over your retired parents to care for them in their old age. They are not contributing financially to the system but they are costing British taxpayers a lot of money.

The point though - it's irrelevant. Even those cases, and even straight up cases where people come here and just go on the dole, don't change the fact that as a whole immigrants are a net positive to the country(financially), and that's based on the OFR findings not my imagination.

[sph]

Brexit was about leaving Europe, whose immigrants where overwhelmingly young people or couples which would've been net contributors, spending up to a decade before returning to their home countries. I have literally seen this happen dozen of times in my time there.

Myself I have spent almost two decades in Britain, paid my taxes (at the highest rate at that), and decided to leave when I saw that the immigration talk had turned everybody into racist lunatics, and even people like me, from the same continent, were made to feel unwelcome by this rhetoric. For all I care, it's a failed state, yet it has not yet seen the bottom until it progresses its descent into decay, the same that has infected the US and elected Trump.

You will get your Reform government and it'll be Brexit times 10. Only then, maybe, the British people will stop falling for far-right propaganda paid for the Russians.

[gambiting]

Yep, it's incredibly unfortunate, given how obvious it is.

[ceejayoz]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melania_Trump

[henearkr]

Yes.

Mixing of cultures always lead to adding up their different solutions to all kinds of problems, improving the fitness of the result among other groups of humans.

It's gathering all the positive ideas or traditions of several groups, and the less useful or negative aspects tend to just fade naturally.

[zuzululu]

yeah that didnt workout in germany

[surgical_fire]

> Is Britain British without British Bourgeoisie that have lived there for thousands of years with new arrivals that have no commmon culture or connection to the land?

Thousands of years? Are you talking about celts?

Because Romans later arrived in Britannia and founded Londinium. Is it British when it was founded by those pesky Romans?

Or are you complaining about later populations, such as Vikings or Normans? I mean, they haven't been to the British isles for thousands of years. How can Britain be British with those smelly frenchmen?

Unless what you really are trying to do is complain that Britain now has too many brown people.

[asveikau]

Excuse me, are you holding up the British as some kind of pure, undisturbed ethnicity?

You mean the celts who were conquered by Romans who were conquered be Angles who were conquered by Normans? Who speak this bastard language we're using now, where most vocabulary is Latinate upon bones of Germanic?

[gib444]

> Why is it okay for one but not the other? Where does this double standard come from ?

Because in Japan AIUI they haven't been infiltrated by people pushing narratives that being eg White British is inherently racist, that to not open your borders to one and all is racism and xenophobia (you can see lots of examples of such people in the post about the Swiss referendum on the 10M population limit), which they do in order to gain for them and their communities.

The existing minority populations know they can abuse our good nature, our placidity, our leftist politicians, and even the English language in order to gain, and to position themselves as continuous victims. Some feminists do the same. The idea that the whole of the UK is full of angry white supremacist racists is the kind of propaganda I allude to (it's funny how many US folk here fall for it).

(I am British, lived here all my life, live in a county with many areas of significant minority populations, and just old enough to have observed plenty of change in England)

[henearkr]

It's not ok in Japan either.

And its "homogeneous identity" is mostly a construction, dating back from the Meiji era.

And Heian period Japan had a completely different set of values, not less nor more valid than Meiji era Japan, just different.

So the identity of a nation is not something eternal nor absolute.

Heck, there is even proof Japan has been a mosaic of at least three sets of human populations in prehistoric times, arrived at different times on the land.

So here you are: yes Japan was, long time ago, a land of immigration.

[nephihaha]

Japan is fairly homogenous with the obvious exception of the Ainu and certain castes. Much more so than Persia/Iran, Russia, Mexico or India. When Japan had a large empire, that was not so much the case, because they ruled over very different peoples.

[henearkr]

That's not what most recent archaeological discoveries tell.

Quite distinct groups of humans mixed in ancient Japan, as different and distant at that time as the groups that are mixed in modern times in Peru or India.

Some groups were related to Autronesians, others to Yakuts, yet other groups to Hans, etc.

If I remember correctly, at least three distinct groups are proven to have cohabited and arrived at different times.

[nephihaha]

I am not talking about prehistory here. The culture of the Japanese "Home Islands" in the Middle Ages consisted of two main groups: Ainu/Edo and the Japonic peoples who spoke related dialects. The first group was treated abysmally and dwindled. There were differences based on environment, e.g. the people in Tohuku had to deal with the cold and those in the south had subtropical climates and more outside interaction. The first major cultural difference (other than Ainu) came in with Christianity in the south and caused a civil war.

Japan is a heck of a lot more homogenous than Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and most of continental south east Asia. In fact, for that matter, Japan was more homogenous in 1707 than the British Isles, Spain, France, Italy or Germany.

[henearkr]

We're talking about separate things, yeah.

The Ainu/mainland distinction is a feature arrived much later than the mixing I am referring to.

My point is that Japan ethnicity is the product of a mixing just as the one occurring nowadays in France, Britain or Norway, between several very different people.

So that, if such mixing produces great results (do we agree that modern day Japan is that?), why not welcome today's mixings for the sake of the great nations of the future?

But I don't think we'll reach a common understanding on this topic, so we can just agree to disagree.

And have a good one.

[nephihaha]

"So that, if such mixing produces great results (do we agree that modern day Japan is that?), why not welcome today's mixings for the sake of the great nations of the future?"

It can also produce indifferent and awful results depending on the situation, which you don't mention.

Do you think that the introduction of the Italian Mafia was beneficial to the USA for example? It is clear that most Italian Americans were never in the Mafia but the USA let in individuals who were known to be in it, which was avoidable. In fact, the USA revitalised it after WW2 in Italy too.

Japan's remote ancestry isn't the issue here. Your point is not well nuanced and merely promotes the dominant narrative of today. If Japan has been great, I would put that down to a combination of native resilience (since Japan can be a tough environment in terms of earthquakes, tsunami and volcanos), Chinese high culture (especially in art, philosophy and literature) and a high degree of adaptability to western technologies. Austronesians may have contributed some level of maritime knowledge, but that would have been superseded at least a thousand years ago by improved ships and navigation methods.

Japan is at a crossroads just now. It does appear to have some economic and structural issues. Where these go long term, we will see.

The Ainu are far more relevant than what you talk about, because they still exist today and are under major threat. Their future, unfortunately, is not well assured.

[zuzululu]

and your point ?

[10xDev]

Japan never colonised India, Japan never colonised an African nation, Japan never colonised a Caribbean nation.

Britain overnight cannot have a fresh start from its past, even the royals have ties to other nations. The England that was always English never existed and its history will always be rooted in the British empire (where the sun never set).

[po1nt]

Well Britain didn't genocide the Chinese. And all the countries colonized by Britain are now better of then those that weren't. Look at ex-Rhodesia.

[anigbrowl]

I'm not sure that creating mass addiction and collapsing the Chinese economy by forcibly industrializing and scaling up the opium trade was so much better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

[newaccountman2]

The result of the poll in the article seems to be a soft rebuke of the kind of viewpoint you espouse.

> Can Japan be called Japan without Japanese that have lived there for thousands of years and their homogeneous identity?

> Why is it okay for one but not the other? Where does this double standard come from ?

Disingenuous question; even people who like Japan and Japanese culture tend to dislike how xenophobic and racist it is.

[zuzululu]

which is why Sane Takaichi became PM ? I do think there is a clear distance from all the Japan experts on HN and reality

[newaccountman2]

> which is why Sane Takaichi became PM ?

??

1. You claim (without basis or evidence) that people in the West have a double-standard about xenophobia and cultural chauvinism as between Japan and Western countries.

2. I say people in the West also dislike it in Japan and Japanese culture (more precisely, the same people who dislike racism and bigotry in the West dislike that it exists in Japan too)

3. You say "but Japan elected a right-wing bigot"

like...ok?

We don't like her and we don't like you :shrug:

[iamflimflam1]

Are you British or do you live in Britain?

[zuzululu]

I don't consider my self British even though my Croatian roots can easily pass as one and I lived there during my early adulthood

but one need not live in Britain to know its issues and see past the filter of MSM

we have X now so we can get a more raw look at what's actually happening and what we are not being fully shown.

[sph]

Why? One can parrot Reform talking points from anywhere.

[add-sub-mul-div]

I don't understand Japanese culture well enough to comment on it, but if it contained the ugliness of xenophobia and white supremacy as they exist in America I'd surely oppose it.