Also because their economy is undergirded by an exploitative 'guest worker' program

What is this fascination people have about preserving culture as if that's reasonable or even possible? How many countries across history have preserved their culture (culture meaning food, music, art, political opinions etc). From the Roman empire to today it's the norm for culture to change.

Well I think it’s less about preserving culture in some static form, and more about having everyone on the same page, and working towards the same goals. That doesn’t seem reasonable?

>that doesn’t seem reasonable?

No not really. For starters, who determines what is the “true” culture or what the goals even are?

When does that ever happen?

"Culture" is a very large and full bag. Some items in it are fundamental to maintenance of civilization, others are entirely superficial.

Civilizational: Respect for rights of minorities, rule of law rather than of the strong, willingness to work and pay taxes, valuing education.

Superficial: Cuisine, dress, artistic taste, ritual formalities of religion.

Few governments have had success splitting immigration policy priorities along these lines, though some have had the wisdom to at least try.

Gradual culture mutation is different from sudden culture importation. There is a narrow neighbourhood in the space of possible cultures that is reachable from any given culture in it, this is the space explored by ordinary mechanims of culture change like cultural exchange and new generations.

Mass immigration explores the space very differently, in a way that is sudden and discontinues.I think it's reasonable for people to worry that they're being replaced, because that's actually what's (more or less) happening.

> I think it's reasonable for people to worry that they're being replaced

My issue is the entitlement that goes hand in hand with this mentality. Everyone replaces someone. What makes me so special that I get to go, “oh no you don’t, all cultural change ends with me and my friends unless I specifically sanction the change”?

People made room for me, after all.

European countries have rich cultures too, but apparently do not have the option to preserve that. Go figure.

This is a tricky situation, because "European" culture is much more disseminated throughout the world. How many countries outside of Europe are majority Christian? How many speak Spanish, French and English? How many have large populations who are 1st or 2nd level descendants of people born in Europe?

You cannot influence without being influenced.

>You cannot influence without being influenced.

Why not? China has massive influence in many countries, and they seem to retain a lot of their culture while suppressing any internal change/dissent. It would seem to me that many European countries have simply decided they would like to be influenced for whatever reason, not that they are compelled to by some universal rule.

How do you know China isn’t being influenced?

(Relatively) Low rates of foreign immigration despite ageing population, strong central goverment with the intention of weakening external and internal influences (See Uyghurs / western chinese territories for an example of internal influences, for external influences the great firewall is an obvious one, but there are many others), and third a general ethno-nationalist mentality from many, but not all Han chinese, encouraged by the central state and the general culture.

I don't think those things necessarily answer the question. Also, how long has China been at extending their influence abroad? How long does these processes take? Obviously, in the case of Europe, this has been going on for centuries. Influence is inevitable because to influence others you have to be open to be influenced. Chinese that go to these countries to make deals, embassies with workers that grow culturally connected, this is the start. Relationships may tighten beyond this. I could go on.

That situation will be as untenable as Japan’s in the long run, as China also has its own looming demographic crisis. The government will likely open up to more immigration from Southeast Asia, at the very least.

They had the option. Nobody ever forced European countries to accept mass immigration. They could have remained closed and avoided outside cultural influence if they had wanted to, but most of them didn’t.

> Nobody ever forced European countries to accept mass immigration.

It came up for a direct vote? Or did politicians who never ran on mass immigration platforms just kinda decide to introduce legislation?

People tend to conflate the acceptance of mass immigration in western countries (by characterizing opposition as horribly racist) with tacit approval by the citizens.

Of course in representative democracies not every topic is voted on in a referendum.

The general failure of anti-immigration parties to win majorities in European countries suggests that most people are either pro-immigration or at least willing to accept it.

> The general failure of anti-immigration parties to win majorities in European countries suggests that most people are either pro-immigration or at least willing to accept it.

But again, that ties back to the demonization of being against immigration. Is it _really_ reflective of true popular support if you’re going to be labeled a racist if you don’t vote the right way?

Well, that’s why voting is secret.

This idea that the population has a say and gets what it wants… This is most fascinating.

In some countries it does

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Hungarian_migrant_quota_r...

In fact, they went around forcing their culture upon others. This is historically a fact. Let's see what the HN censors say.

Many did, but many did not, entirety of eastern europe (minus Russia), germany, nordics, balkans, and central european states had no history of colonization or very little, and even then it was not in the regions most associated with migration to europe. Only things besides colonization that come to mind are wars in the middle east, and every country I listed besides germany is too small to matter in that.

They didn't do much colonization because they were too busy fighting wars with each other... For centuries... WW1 and WW2 and even the current conflict is just singular events in long line of internal wars of Europe.

Also something that should not be easily forgotten or ever forgiven is the missionary work by religious groups... Destroying cultures around world. It is sad we have not punished them for that and maybe even banned them to protect the future.

>They didn't do much colonization because they were too busy fighting wars with each other

No, nearly every one of the countries I listed had simply no intention or means to colonize effectively at a profit, has nothing to do with preoccupation with continental wars.

> Also something that should not be easily forgotten or ever forgiven is the missionary work by religious groups

Again, all of the countries I mentioned had very little if not null participation in this, and yet to varying degrees they are being punished for it...

Ever heard about Genghis Khan? Mehmed II?

The comment you’re replying to never claimed that Europeans are the only people who have ever imposed their culture on others. As you point out, that claim would be patently absurd.

The sheer amount of xenophobia and ethnic-nationalism/racism on HN that’s upvoted never surprises. I almost came to this thread expecting a flurry of xenophobic comments, and yup, I found it.

Somehow the same people who get very worked up about "Cultural Appropriation" are so very extremly offended when some people of certain cultures want to preserve theirs too.

I don't have a strong opinion on immigration either way, like anything it can be a force for good or a distaster depending on how it's handled. But if there's one thing I hate, it's taboos and buzz words, mixed with hypocrisy for good measure. There is nothing inherently wrong about opposing immigration or disliking immigrants, your country is like your house, you are perfectly justified on not wanting guests in it, even if it's for 'wrong' (read : racist) reason. This doesn't mean I like or hold those opinons, but they are natural and justified, and people have the right to hold them.

It’s common to see it everywhere. It’s very common to hear blood and soil rhetoric wrt black people or Native Americans, but it’s called progressive and liberal but not xenophobic for some reasons.

> It’s very common to hear blood and soil rhetoric wrt black people or Native Americans, but it’s called progressive and liberal but not xenophobic for some reasons.

I believe it is called progressive and liberal because African Americans and Native Americans have historically been enslaved or (nearly) exterminated by Europeans in North America.

I came to ask why it's OK for a japanese to be ethnic-nationalist but it's not OK for a european?

What's wrong with being ethnic-nationalist?

Nothing is wrong with it. Don’t give the idiots who are bleating at it/you even a second of attention.

Europeans are amazing and should be held up high.

They should stop and reverse the importation of the third world and remain European.

I don't believe there is anything wrong with ethnonationalism for smaller countries it is even good unifying force that can lead to social democracies... Which are relatively decent places to live in sense of quality of live, low crime rates and so on.

Not that this is an option for all countries, specially those that don't have unified history or culture. For example with USA it might make sense for native population.

A lot of the immigrants to Europe are ill behaved. No one has problems with Japanese immigrants in Europe.

There's quite a few dogwhistlers here for sure but I'd say it's availability bias - people comment more on threads about things they care about. Id say the community skews libertarian, not far right.

Humans have an obsession with preservation of things as they are. We can certainly learn from history and appreciate it, but fighting to "preserve" things is ultimately a pointless endeavor. We are a tiny blip in the history of the Earth and fighting to preserve everything is just fighting the inevitability of the course of time, fighting nature itself.

At the same time, I absolutely abhor and detest global monoculture.

I went to Vietnam before the pandemic and lot's of hip coffee shops are basically exact clones of something you'd find in Portland.

There might just be a middle ground between "militant racist nationalism" and "global homogenous monoculture".

This seems a remarkably false dichotomy.

I'd love to hear what you think that is.

There are numerous instances of blended and melding cultures.

These are neither purely traditional nor fully globally assimilationist.

Singapore, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Austin and San Antonio, TX, Vancouver, Sydney, London, Berlin, Miami, and Rio all come to mind. Those are among the larger cities, there are also smaller and more outlying regions.

People have always moved, migrated, and interacted. Quite often peaceably, as the alternative is extraordinarily destructive.

London is a miserable failure, not only in terms of crime and inequality but you've kicked an ancient island people out of their capitol city. Isn't the displacement of indigenous people something we're supposed to feel bad about? Or do the rules change based on skin color. Most of the rest are just US cities which are what he's complaining about. I think there really might not be an in between.

>you’ve kicked an ancient island people out of their capitol city

You need to brush up on your history my friend. The number of times the island has changed hands runs counter to your point, and the current inhabitants certainly aren’t some continuation of an ancient people.

Rome held it, the Britons held it, the Picts invaded from Ireland, the Angles and Saxons had it after beating the Picts and killing the Britons…the list goes on. There isn’t some sacred ancient culture at stake and I’m sure the groups that were kicked out by the current inhabitants would take umbrage with your point if they could speak up.

I’m not even going to dive into “London is a miserable failure.” That’s just another hand wavy talking point. I’m not even sure by what metrics you’d measure how London is a “miserable failure.”

That's the case with nearly every indigenous people though.

Yes, which is why I find the assertion not just incorrect but also kind of silly.

Sounds like you’re crying crocodile tears, then!

So, I'm a little unclear here.

Is the problem that immigration drags down economies?

Or that it leads to gentrification?

You know, all those lazy Polish plumbers coming over and stealing all those British jobs....

Sounds like you've found a cause for every problem you see.

A culture so rich, nobody feels like having children.

Or maybe you meant "rigid"?

What a mindset. "Foreigners are coming here to destroy our culture, we can let them work for us but never give them full rights".