101–110 of 202 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
so all japan needs to do is completely destroy their own culture, its so simple now
Accepting more immigrants doesn't have to mean destroying own culture. I don't see why Japan can't promote and preserve its own culture while accepting immigrants. Is coexisting that hard?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes, and maybe immigration could actually be a good thing by creating problems to solve... a circular logic, but it may help unravel centuries of mono-culture and its idiosyncrasies such as mistrust and racism.
so all japan needs to do is completely destroy their own culture, its so simple now
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does immigration mean that you're "destroying their own culture"? Please stop talking in hyperbole and being sarcastic, it isn't helpful. I can't see why a unique culture ought to be 'preserved' as people say, either. And I can't see why the 'bad' parts cannot be slowly eroded over time. Nor do I see why certain 'races' ought to be kept. This has always been an argument that's been relatively ignored - why exactl…
> It is ultimately the decision of the Japanese citizens I mean, that's exactly it. Why is it so shocking an idea that the Japanese apparently prefer to retain their homogeneity even if it weakens their economy?
Is this true? How do you know?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hasn't Japan already done that? Secondly, I think it's very Western-centric viewpoint that your country's economy comes before everything else.
I mean without a strong economy everything else around it kinda goes to shit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Is coexisting that hard? Yes. Because of culture clashes. New Culture B doesn't like how existing Culture A "does things" and demands a change. While they are some small minority, they often get ignored by the majority (Culture A). Over time, as more and more of Culture B immigrates into Culture A, they become large enough of a group that they can no longer be ignored . If Culture B was totally fine with adopting Cu…
I think we can all agree that there already are vetting processes to screen for immigrants who are least likely to receive and give cultural shocks with existing cultures within the country. These should be given appropriate weight as desired by citizens of the country.
Which is precisely the decision that has already been made that people not part of the culture disagree with. Surprise, surprise, people with different cultural values are disagreeing with the decision made by another culture regarding their own cultural values. Going so far as to argue that they should change their cultural values to more align with the cultural values of the criticizers because their cultural values are "not worth defending" and should be changed. Color me unsurprised.
This is still the most accurate and most depressing comic I've seen regarding timeless topics such as these [0]. You can look into history and see something play out in the exact same way dozens if not hundreds of times, across many cultures and even differing centuries, yet people will insist it won't happen that way this time for whatever reasons they can contrive.
I can list out dozens of cultures that have disappeared with time due to (1) invaders or (2) assimilation. There are many cultures that have changed with time, on their own terms, and those cultures are among the oldest in the world with the oldest traditions - and often are very isolated cultures with few immigrants. You can list out drastic changes in cultures, which often follow wars (for the losing side) or genocide. You can argue some drastic changes in culture due to losing war is overall good (re: Nazis. They lost.) but that isn't the case every time for every war.
I'm all for sharing cultures and learning from one another. I'm not one for destroying cultures because they hold different cultural values than some other group of people who think they are "right". Most of the world's greatest evils have been committed by groups of people who were certain they were the ones who were "right".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is ultimately the decision of the Japanese citizens I mean, that's exactly it. Why is it so shocking an idea that the Japanese apparently prefer to retain their homogeneity even if it weakens their economy?
>Why is it so shocking an idea that the Japanese apparently prefer to retain their homogeneity even if it weakens their economy? Is this true? How do you know?
Why would the Japanese look to a London based publication for validation of their rankings among Asian universities? This sort of thing is not an exact science and it's a shame Asia (I know India does this a lot) continues to hold the West (UK/USA specifically) as some great arbitrator and moderator of the world when they may have their own vested interests about things - and of course vice versa.
I really don't see a way out for Japan that's not immigration. It might lead to social upheaval, but it sounds like that kind of change is sorely needed. A well executed immigration policy could inject fresh blood into that country.
... 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 would the Japanese look to a London based publication for validation of their rankings among Asian universities? This sort of thing is not an exact science and it's a shame Asia (I know India does this a lot) continues to hold the West (UK/USA specifically) as some great arbitrator and moderator of the world when they may have their own vested interests about things - and of course vice versa.
This is playing identity politics at its worst. You're saying that a London based publication might have vested interest about things, and therefore somebody from a foreign country shouldn't care about their rankings at all.
You don't address how the rankings are formed, if they're accurate or not, or if they're useful in measuring the economic value of the graduates.
You also don't propose another ranking system/methodology/evaluation system. You're basically bringing nothing to the table except "Asia has an inferiority complex" which is a statement you don't back up with facts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Accepting more immigrants doesn't have to mean destroying own culture. I don't see why Japan can't promote and preserve its own culture while accepting immigrants. Is coexisting that hard?
The better question is why should they have to? Because Western countries decided their economy is more important than their autonomy to decide these things?
