Quote Originally Posted by nice gaijin
Are we defining "pure" as ethnically or culturally unique and homogenous?
As I said in my previous post, there is little relation between culture and ethnicity, and I started this thread to discuss cultural influence over the centuries, not ethnic homogeneity.

I think all this thread has done is show that there is no such thing as a "pure" society. No culture is beyond foreign influences and exchanges, no matter how hard they try.
...
India is still considered to be a developing country. Even if it preserves its ancient customs and traditions, I wouldn't take the fact that you couldn't find a McDonald's to be a sign that it is some sort of romantic stronghold against the encroachment of western influence.
You are missing the point of this thread completely, which is to compare traditional cultures, not modern ones. It is obvious that in today's age of globalisation every country is full of foreign influence. But McDonald's is not and never will be part of the traditional Indian or Japanese culture - that's a fact.

Arguing about which culture borrowed what practice from whom is starting to look like mental masturbation; pointless and frustrating. Are we trying to weigh the value of a culture by how much they have been influenced by their neighbors over the ages?
If you don't like it, nobody forced you to post in this thread. I like such discussions.