of course, it doesn't have to. And france has dealt with immigration in the past quite successfully, with newcomers melting their identity completely as to become almost undistinguishable from the french one after just a few generations.
For some reasons it doesn't seem to having worked that way in the last decades (and it would be really interesting to know why).
What you're doing is called "True Scotsman" and you're missing the point. French culture is whatever happens in France. It's not some ideologically sterile idea that you make it out to be. Same for Japan. French and Japanese culture evolve with time and influence, just as the rest of the world. However it is still French/Japanese culture.
In some far distant world where people in France no longer eat baguettes or people in Japan are not synonymous with Sushi, those people still exist in French and Japanese culture. (And those ideological totems still exist as legacies in French and Japanese culture, they're just no longer practiced).
And I'm not even going to begin to address the influences that France and Japan have had on other cultures (the entirety of Africa and Asia). The cultures of the places that France and Japan have influence have not been "superseded". They are still the culture's of those lands. They just have outside influence.
This sounds to me as a bit tautological. If we move 200 millions from china in 1 month, you wouldn't say "french culture is about eating rice, and french people generally look like chinese".
Culture sometimes change intrinsically, but sometimes because of huge foreign influence or demographics ( invasion being historically the most influencial one). Doesn't mean you can't observe the change when it happens and judge it.
The movement of people causes an interchange of culture.
reply