[Anon_Forever]

>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]

> "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]

>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.

[fzeroracer]

Where does your logic fall when it comes to Japan erasing and replacing the various indigenous groups like the Ainu for not being Japanese enough?

[Anon_Forever]

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

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

The logic is 100% consistent.