>You’re tiptoeing dangerously near some very questionable ethnic/racial arguments

Is he ? What's so dangerous about liking homogenous cultures and homogenous races ?

I don't want to assume too much about you, but this smells like the usual progressive tendency to glorify population-importing immigration and taboofy any discussion of it that views it in negative or critical light. There is nothing wrong about disliking foreigners on one's own land, just like there is nothing wrong about disliking guests in one's own house.

> but this smells like the usual progressive tendency to glorify population-importing immigration

That is a massive leap from what I said. I really need you to point out where I “glorified” anything.

> There is nothing wrong about disliking foreigners on one's own land

When you put it that way…yeah something definitely sounds wrong.

>I really need you to point out where I “glorified” anything.

The commenter you replied was questioning if a nation could maintain it's character after wholesale replacement of it's population by other people, and you said yes, and implied that thinking otherwise is dangerous.

>yeah something definitely sounds wrong

What is that something ? If I own a car or a house, I can control who gets inside that car or house, and I can exclude people on whatever basis I like, including race and culture. This is not ideal, but that's the reality. Changing it is likely to be extremly hard and violent.

A country is "owned" by it's population, if a substantial majority of it's population don't want to let certain people into it, why is that such a problem ? Do you think those same people who want to immigrate would welcome a country's worth of people into their own land, if that were to happen ? Nearly every single culture in existence values itself more than others, and feels threatened when it's numbers decrease in relation to another.

I’m not touching this. Sorry mate.

You can’t bully/guilt people into conversations they don’t want to have with people they don’t want to talk to. This is obviously an axe-grinding session for you and frankly I don’t want to be a part of it.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

That's a very Western view of what a country is. The current immigration policies of Japan suggest that "they" do not see it that way.

A country is literally a boundary set by a group of people that other groups of people (largely) agree on. It is, by definition, a social construction. There’s no interpretation to be had tbh.

Now the Japanese’s own sense of identity/culture? It’s a deeply personal and subjective matter. But national boundaries? Not at all.

More than a country, I'd say the Japanese are a nation, see meaning #4 of the definitions below. I think America (the US) is nation only in sense of meanings #1, 2 and 3 which are synonyms of country.

country kŭn′trē noun 1) A nation or state. 2) The territory of a nation or state; land. 3) The people of a nation or state; populace. 4) The land of a person's birth or citizenship. 5) A region, territory, or large tract of land distinguishable by features of topography, biology, or culture. 6) An area or expanse outside cities and towns; a rural area. 7) The people of a district who are eligible for jury service.

nation nā′shən noun 1) A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country. 2) The territory occupied by such a group of people. 3) The government of a sovereign state. 4) A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality. 5) A federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans. 6) The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe.

The Japanese are indeed a nation. They’re a culture. An identity.

Japan is a country with boundaries that most of the world agrees on. There is nothing innate about its location or composition.

Who is “they”? Cf. ship of Theseus.