Well, let's have a stroll through a minefield, but reading GP's comment made me wonder if yeah, a country full of migrant Japanese should/can be considered "Jap

Well, let's have a stroll through a minefield, but reading GP's comment made me wonder if yeah, a country full of migrant Japanese should/can be considered "Japanese", or if we're only counting the population with centuries of "native Japanese blood" as "Japanese". For the sake of discussion, say if the government "imported" Scandinavian[1] families with their traditions, etc, to Japan, probably they'll keep this culture, and you'd have "parallel societies". Maybe only if the migrant families have kids who are young enough to grow up with the Japanese culture, and for some people maybe even that's not Japanese enough, because of their migrant parents' influence on them, and maybe only the kids of these kids, who'd have assimilated even more Japanese culture while growing up, would be sufficiently Japanese. Edit to add: the alternative, a bunch of Scandinavians living in Scandinavian neighborhoods and sending their kids to Scandinavian schools (with their own cultures/languages) would bring about a totally different community within a few generations, which one could say "not very Japanese", or "a very different Japan". [1] I had a different origin country before I changed it to "Scandinavian", I have a feeling changing the country has an effect on how people would perceive such a migration, but hey maybe I'm projecting my own bias.