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?
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.
(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?
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...
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 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.
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.
