6 ms·

Yes, replacing. You're replacing native Japanese with foreigners. That is by definition replacing.

bt4u 3y ago
[dead]
shadowgovt 3y ago
It really depends how you define what a people is. Geographically, it's obviously not replacement. "People lived here, now people live here" is just continuity. Genetically, who cares. Culturally, that's up to the people.
- bongoman37 3y ago
  Outside of a few places like the US, people care a hell of a lot about the genetics. Try putting Africans in India, or Japanese in China, and so on, there is no such thing as the melting pot in the vast majority of the world.
  - hnbad 3y ago
    They don't care about genetics. They just dislike specific groups of people. Which ones is largely arbitrary and has more to do with history than genetics. Some places also have a much narrower "in-group" than others, again largely as a result of history. In some cases the "in-group" doesn't even include all the groups of people that historically live in the same territory, e.g. present-day China has significant undertones of Han nationalism or India with Hindu nationalism, despite both countries being geographically huge and ethnically diverse. In the moment, aside from historical preconditions, the largest factor to how narrow this in-group is and how strong the dislike towards those not in it is, is mostly a matter of perceived scarcity and danger. As every good business owner knows, the best way to distract an employee from how small their share of the profits is, is to dangle a more desperate group in front of them as a scapegoat. Give someone your scraps, then make them deathly afraid others want to take it away from them, and they won't dare to ask for more (or solidarize with others against you - racism was one of the biggest cudgels against unions in the early 20th century US before simply framing unions as communist became an option).
- Anon_Forever 3y ago
  >It really depends how you define what a people is. Not at all, not unless you use some Orwellian tactics to completely redefine what an ethnic group is. >Geographically, it's obviously not replacement. "People lived here, now people live here" is just continuity. A geographic area is not a "people" nor an ethnic group. Shoving more people into the landmass we know as Japan may be good for the economy of the landmass, but it won't be good for the ethnic group we call the Japanese. >Genetically, who cares. Common ancestry is one of the core attributes of ethnic groups. The Japanese people and ethnologists care >Culturally, that's up to the people. "If we replace the Japanese with Appalachian Whites, it's up to the people to decide if they're being replaced or not." Yes, you made my point for me: if you replace the Japanese with foreigners, they are being replaced. QED.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    > "If we replace the Japanese with Appalachian Whites, it's up to the people to decide if they're being replaced or not." Basically true. An awful lot of Americans, for example, don't see it as "replacement" when people from Mexico, Canada, El Salvador, Spain, or wherever come join them. Their cultural identity isn't defined very tightly at all by who their parents were. This is not universally true in the country, of course, and some of the larger political fights are over this notion. If Japan feels much more strongly that ancestry matters profoundly, well, that's going to be a rub for them moving forward. But beliefs are malleable and it will ultimately be up to them.
    - Anon_Forever 3y ago
      >Basically true. Not at all, not unless you use some Orwellian tactics to completely redefine what ethnic replacement is. >An awful lot of Americans, for example, don't see it as "replacement" when people from Mexico, Canada, El Salvador, Spain, or wherever come join them. Just because there's a large group that's delusional or willfully ignorant to what's happening doesn't make it true. An awful lot of Americans think men can get pregnant, or climate change isn't anthropogenic or happening at all. They're being replaced whether they bury their head in the sand or not. >Their cultural identity isn't defined very tightly at all by who their parents were. Of course it is, just like it is in Japan. Your common ancestry and common ancestral grounds are core attributes of what we call ethnic groups. >This is not universally true in the country, of course, and some of the larger political fights are over this notion. As covered above, it's true whether one side believes it or not. No doubt it's become a large political fight from what I've seen. I agree with you there. >If Japan feels much more strongly that ancestry matters profoundly, well, that's going to be a rub for them moving forward. We do. Many countries in Asia and around the world do, which is why many of them (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc.) are ethnically homogeneous.
- mbg721 3y ago
  Japan is something of an extreme example to pick.
  - cycrutchfield 3y ago
    It’s the favored example of white nationalists for some weird reason.
    - wherethoug 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - cycrutchfield 3y ago
        [flagged]
    - thefounder 3y ago
      If only japanese would be white...
- thefounder 3y ago
  I guess by your definition native americans were not replaced either. Genetically, culturally or bullshitically....
  - hnbad 3y ago
    Replaced? No. For the most part native Americans were murdered. Some, quite blatantly, sometimes with literal bounties being set on their heads but more often than not just like a regular "pest" or "dangerous wildlife". Others, more indirectly, through famines brought on by destruction of their food storages or culling of their hunting grounds. And even more died from plagues. They were also repeatedly strongarmed into contracts which were then broken after they had held up their end of the bargain. And of course there were many cases (as recently as the last century) where their children were forcibly removed and placed into Christian boarding schools to "kill the savage, save the child". I know you probably like to use all of these things as fanciful metaphors to support your argument that "natives" (white people or the Japanese) are now being "replaced" by (incidentally Black and brown) immigrants but these weren't metaphors, these were the real deal. By alluding to these things as metaphors you're masking the real scale and character of these historical atrocities.

bt4u 3y ago

[dead]

It really depends how you define what a people is. Geographically, it's obviously not replacement. "People lived here, now people live here" is just continuity. Genetically, who cares. Culturally, that's up to the people.

bongoman37 3y ago
Outside of a few places like the US, people care a hell of a lot about the genetics. Try putting Africans in India, or Japanese in China, and so on, there is no such thing as the melting pot in the vast majority of the world.
- hnbad 3y ago
  They don't care about genetics. They just dislike specific groups of people. Which ones is largely arbitrary and has more to do with history than genetics. Some places also have a much narrower "in-group" than others, again largely as a result of history. In some cases the "in-group" doesn't even include all the groups of people that historically live in the same territory, e.g. present-day China has significant undertones of Han nationalism or India with Hindu nationalism, despite both countries being geographically huge and ethnically diverse. In the moment, aside from historical preconditions, the largest factor to how narrow this in-group is and how strong the dislike towards those not in it is, is mostly a matter of perceived scarcity and danger. As every good business owner knows, the best way to distract an employee from how small their share of the profits is, is to dangle a more desperate group in front of them as a scapegoat. Give someone your scraps, then make them deathly afraid others want to take it away from them, and they won't dare to ask for more (or solidarize with others against you - racism was one of the biggest cudgels against unions in the early 20th century US before simply framing unions as communist became an option).
Anon_Forever 3y ago
>It really depends how you define what a people is. Not at all, not unless you use some Orwellian tactics to completely redefine what an ethnic group is. >Geographically, it's obviously not replacement. "People lived here, now people live here" is just continuity. A geographic area is not a "people" nor an ethnic group. Shoving more people into the landmass we know as Japan may be good for the economy of the landmass, but it won't be good for the ethnic group we call the Japanese. >Genetically, who cares. Common ancestry is one of the core attributes of ethnic groups. The Japanese people and ethnologists care >Culturally, that's up to the people. "If we replace the Japanese with Appalachian Whites, it's up to the people to decide if they're being replaced or not." Yes, you made my point for me: if you replace the Japanese with foreigners, they are being replaced. QED.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  > "If we replace the Japanese with Appalachian Whites, it's up to the people to decide if they're being replaced or not." Basically true. An awful lot of Americans, for example, don't see it as "replacement" when people from Mexico, Canada, El Salvador, Spain, or wherever come join them. Their cultural identity isn't defined very tightly at all by who their parents were. This is not universally true in the country, of course, and some of the larger political fights are over this notion. If Japan feels much more strongly that ancestry matters profoundly, well, that's going to be a rub for them moving forward. But beliefs are malleable and it will ultimately be up to them.
  - Anon_Forever 3y ago
    >Basically true. Not at all, not unless you use some Orwellian tactics to completely redefine what ethnic replacement is. >An awful lot of Americans, for example, don't see it as "replacement" when people from Mexico, Canada, El Salvador, Spain, or wherever come join them. Just because there's a large group that's delusional or willfully ignorant to what's happening doesn't make it true. An awful lot of Americans think men can get pregnant, or climate change isn't anthropogenic or happening at all. They're being replaced whether they bury their head in the sand or not. >Their cultural identity isn't defined very tightly at all by who their parents were. Of course it is, just like it is in Japan. Your common ancestry and common ancestral grounds are core attributes of what we call ethnic groups. >This is not universally true in the country, of course, and some of the larger political fights are over this notion. As covered above, it's true whether one side believes it or not. No doubt it's become a large political fight from what I've seen. I agree with you there. >If Japan feels much more strongly that ancestry matters profoundly, well, that's going to be a rub for them moving forward. We do. Many countries in Asia and around the world do, which is why many of them (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc.) are ethnically homogeneous.
mbg721 3y ago
Japan is something of an extreme example to pick.
- cycrutchfield 3y ago
  It’s the favored example of white nationalists for some weird reason.
  - wherethoug 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - cycrutchfield 3y ago
      [flagged]
  - thefounder 3y ago
    If only japanese would be white...
thefounder 3y ago
I guess by your definition native americans were not replaced either. Genetically, culturally or bullshitically....
- hnbad 3y ago
  Replaced? No. For the most part native Americans were murdered. Some, quite blatantly, sometimes with literal bounties being set on their heads but more often than not just like a regular "pest" or "dangerous wildlife". Others, more indirectly, through famines brought on by destruction of their food storages or culling of their hunting grounds. And even more died from plagues. They were also repeatedly strongarmed into contracts which were then broken after they had held up their end of the bargain. And of course there were many cases (as recently as the last century) where their children were forcibly removed and placed into Christian boarding schools to "kill the savage, save the child". I know you probably like to use all of these things as fanciful metaphors to support your argument that "natives" (white people or the Japanese) are now being "replaced" by (incidentally Black and brown) immigrants but these weren't metaphors, these were the real deal. By alluding to these things as metaphors you're masking the real scale and character of these historical atrocities.