3 ms·

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

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 4mo ago
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 4mo ago
  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.
  - zuzululu 4mo ago
    and your point ?
  - nephihaha 4mo ago
    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 4mo ago
      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 4mo ago
        "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 4mo ago
[flagged]
- henearkr 4mo ago
  We can distill our disagreement into: "present perspective vs past perspective". Why do I think that the archaeologic/anthropologic perspective is a great point on this issue? It's because it's precisely one of the talking points of Japanese anti-immigration or xenophobic politicians or writers to emphasize those points. They always say that Japan is different in that of America or of European countries. However archaeology taught us that this is not true. Just as European countries have always been connected and mixed together, Japan also has undergone population mixes. Just on a larger time scale. That's for the "ethnical homegeinity". So that is a great way to explain why this particular argument of "Japanese exceptionalism" doesn't hold. Now for the "political" homogeinity: this one is a pure illusion. In current Japan, even if very-long-term political circumstances have taught people to stay discreet about political disagreement (quite similar to, say, in Russian mindset of avoiding talking politics), there are a lot of different mindsets, and many subcultures. Even the cultural "homogeinity" is quite recent (Meiji era), and a product of violence. There were 4 casts etc, and the samurais cast tried (and succeeded) to become the "only legitimate one". Now what about the world in, say, one century, when all the cultures will have time to mix together and stabilize the result all over the world? It will not be unlike the "homogeinity" that you see in today's Japan. This is precisely what Japan's ancient history can teach us, and I think it's a great way to disarm the far-right and xenophobic rhetorics that is unrelentingly ruining our ears and brains nowadays. (PS: Please refrain from using "gaijin" which is widely regarded as a xenophobic slur.)
  - zuzululu 4mo ago
    > gaijin which is widely regarded as a xenophobic slur. Its used commonly and not a slur.
    - henearkr 4mo ago
      You're right that it is used commonly, but we have the chance to be in a position to know better (thanks to our cross-cultural and larger perspective). The right term is gaikokujin, but if we speak in English there is no reason to not just say "foreigner". "gaijin" has the vibes of "outsider", and is never used in public speech other than by xenophobic speakers. In private or familiar conversations it is commonly used, yes.

nephihaha 4mo ago

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 4mo ago
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.
- zuzululu 4mo ago
  and your point ?
- nephihaha 4mo ago
  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 4mo ago
    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 4mo ago
      "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 4mo ago

[flagged]

henearkr 4mo ago
We can distill our disagreement into: "present perspective vs past perspective". Why do I think that the archaeologic/anthropologic perspective is a great point on this issue? It's because it's precisely one of the talking points of Japanese anti-immigration or xenophobic politicians or writers to emphasize those points. They always say that Japan is different in that of America or of European countries. However archaeology taught us that this is not true. Just as European countries have always been connected and mixed together, Japan also has undergone population mixes. Just on a larger time scale. That's for the "ethnical homegeinity". So that is a great way to explain why this particular argument of "Japanese exceptionalism" doesn't hold. Now for the "political" homogeinity: this one is a pure illusion. In current Japan, even if very-long-term political circumstances have taught people to stay discreet about political disagreement (quite similar to, say, in Russian mindset of avoiding talking politics), there are a lot of different mindsets, and many subcultures. Even the cultural "homogeinity" is quite recent (Meiji era), and a product of violence. There were 4 casts etc, and the samurais cast tried (and succeeded) to become the "only legitimate one". Now what about the world in, say, one century, when all the cultures will have time to mix together and stabilize the result all over the world? It will not be unlike the "homogeinity" that you see in today's Japan. This is precisely what Japan's ancient history can teach us, and I think it's a great way to disarm the far-right and xenophobic rhetorics that is unrelentingly ruining our ears and brains nowadays. (PS: Please refrain from using "gaijin" which is widely regarded as a xenophobic slur.)
- zuzululu 4mo ago
  > gaijin which is widely regarded as a xenophobic slur. Its used commonly and not a slur.
  - henearkr 4mo ago
    You're right that it is used commonly, but we have the chance to be in a position to know better (thanks to our cross-cultural and larger perspective). The right term is gaikokujin, but if we speak in English there is no reason to not just say "foreigner". "gaijin" has the vibes of "outsider", and is never used in public speech other than by xenophobic speakers. In private or familiar conversations it is commonly used, yes.