Yes, it’s a legitimate question. It’s also perfectly normal that people prefer their own culture and way of life over those of others. I was in Thailand and it’s very obvious that they like their own Thai culture. They do not allow immigration (it’s nearly impossible to get Thai residence, much less citizenship), they do not want to become a colony of China, they do not want a flood of cheap illegal workers from Burma (they deport them with little ceremony), they vigorously enforce visa requirements, and they want Thailand to remain Thai. Is Thailand some evil place for having such views? If it’s ok for Thailand to have such views, then is it ok for Europeans to also have such views? Or should we also demand that Thailand become multicultural, become a nation of immigrants, etc? I realize things might be different here in the US, where Europeans came as settlers / colonizers, but what about Europeans living in their indigenous homelands, is it ok for them to have preference to live among Europeans in a European civilization, just like Thais like to live among Thais in a place that’s Thai, and not Chinese, or Burmese, or anything else?
It seems like a legitimate question which should be answered. If whites have lost any legitimate claim to having not nation-of-immigrants homelands, then how did whites lose that claim?
There’s a lot of missing logic that gets filled in with screeching about racism, and when that fails, deplaforming. Screeching and deplatforming wouldn’t be needed if there were some coherent logical responses about why it’s ok for Thailand to be Thai but it’s not ok for England to be English, for example.
You’re relying pretty heavily on your strawman fallacy here.
Much of the world is waking up (thanks internet!) to the ways particular cultures through history have unfairly come to power through various means of violence, suppression and exploitation. At the same time time, it is near impossible to disentangle who has historically done more harm to whom (except in the large scale of slavery or world wars), so one of the best solutions is to realize that race is a social construct, stop with the cultural heritage rationalizations, and start treating our fellow humans as the autonomous and equal beings that they are. Painting migration as a social ill is a form of structural and casual racism.
I would say that probably all cultures that have come to power, have come to power through violence, suppression, and probably also exploitation. And you make the right point, we can’t disentangle who has done worse to whom - it’s endless and there’s no fair score card on that.
Where I don’t agree though is that “much of the world is waking up” to all this. I can’t prove it, but really, Chinese people are starting to question their government’s actions in Tibet, or China’s zero-immigration except for Han people policy? Or India is thinking about tearing down its wall with Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia is exploring granting citizenship to non-Saudi tribe members? I do see such ideas in Western Europe but I don’t see it spreading anywhere else. Maybe I’m wrong though.
Many people are quite aware. It’s just their governments or dominant cultures don’t share or support their views. Countries aren’t basically monolithic.
We can often disentangle who has done worse to whom.
I find it a little “Many kings came to power by poisoning their cousins. Who are we to condemn cousin-murder? Look how effective it was in keeping monarchies in place. Instead, we should think about encouraging it in today’s schools.”
Since you’re Just Asking Questions…
Just short-sighted, as is any country that first defines itself by a particular race or ethnicity or skin colour and excludes or makes second-class citizens of those who aren’t in that group. Since at least the Peace of Westphalia, a nation-state that aspires to be an ethnostate is a nation-state that’s a less prosperous, a less open and a meaner (in both senses of the word) one.
It’s “ok” in the sense that it’s possible. Whether it’s wise is another question, and the answer is “no.”
See also Mom’s old question about the wisdom about jumping off a bridge if your friends do so.
It’s not up those who are non-Thai citizens (note the important distinction between that and those of non-Thai ethnicity) to make the policy of a sovereign nation-state. We can certainly point out the benefits of having an immigration policy not based on close-minded ethnic exclusion and the many downsides of ethnostates, but that’s about all.
They are different. This has always been an immigrant nation, and before that a colony. No “might be” about it, however much America’s white Identitarians prefer to Just Ask Questions about it as they call for a border wall in this ginned-up “crisis”.
The EU isn’t an ethnostate, it’s a union of nation-states that are often themselves mix of ethnicities. Many of those nation-states, after two disastrous wars, overcame centuries of ethno-nationalism and chauvinism to see the undeniable benefits of ethnic and cultural diversity within their borders.
Unfortunately, the generation that fought the last of those disastrous wars has died off, and the bigots, anti-Semites, ultra-nationalists, and right-wing populist scum are once again seeping out from under history’s paving stones.
And what are these “indigenous homelands”? Even within a given European nation-state there’s a lot of ethnic and cultural variety, still reflected in local provincialism and xenophobia. A nation-state that voluntarily balkanises itself on that basis is one that’s committing political and economic suicide and condemning itself to endless wars with neighbours (it’s called “balkanisation” for a reason).
It’s only a “legitimate” question for an Identitarian or a proponent of ethnostates, for the likes of Steve King. The rest of us here see it for the JAQing off that it is.
Now some questions for you:
What exactly is a “white” in the context of a “not nation-of-immigrants homeland”? Someone who has white skin? If you’re going to use such a nebulous term and want to be taken seriously with your “legitimate” questions, you really ought to answer it. I don’t expect you to, since any answer is very likely to bring you into violation of this platform’s rules.
Is pointing out obvious racism like King’s, or of someone who calls for a whites-only homeland, really “screeching”? Do long-discredited ideas about the benefits of ethnostates really deserve a reputable platform or coherent logical responses from serious people that acknowledge there are two sides to be debated?
Time for you to ante up, at least if you have the courage of your convictions and if you have enough to stay in the game. If you don’t, rest assured that I and others will be referring back to this (now bookmarked) topic if you continue Just Asking Questions.
The Hmong and Karen people, for example, are not respected as ‘civilized’ citizens of Thailand. There’s a lot of ethnic prejudice there, too.
Besides, Europe is a continent, and you’ve just described a small country in a different continent that won’t even accept immigrants from its closest neighboring countries. Not a great analogy.
People educated in history and civics and economics, and people who travel frequently, quickly wake up to the benefits of cultural diversity. This is exactly why the authoritarians and kleptocrats and religious fundies and assorted bigots spend so much time demonising intellectuals as “elites”, clamp down on the Internet, and restrict or discourage travel abroad. A truly educated citizenry is their worst nightmare. It’s no co-incidence that America’s most prominent ally of white nationalists announced that he “loves the poorly educated.”
When you find one let me know.
For one thing by there being no such thing.
So you pack an awful lot of assumptions in that little sentence there.
What is England?
What would make it English?
Who counts as English?
Who gets to decide that?
Which confirms exactly what I said, it’s nearly impossible to get it:
The annual quota for granting permanent residency in Thailand is a maximum of 100 persons per country.
In other words, 100 Americans per year, 100 Chinese per year, etc. In addition you have to be in one of the accepted categories, which means basically very successful people (large investments, academic professional, something like that). It probably requires the right connections, too, because 100 per country is the maximum, but they don’t need to accept that many and when Thai government officials make decisions, it’s not a fair decision. Overall the system means that immigration to Thailand will never be more than a trickle of successful, well-connected people, who likely speak Thai and have a Thai spouse (in practice). I would be very much ok with a system like that here in the US, and as someone who respects Thailand and Thai culture, I’m very much ok with them having such a system too.
We do have a system like that. That people try to circumvent it and live here undocumented is more a question of what aspects of the U.S. make it a more desirable destination than Thailand for both economic migrants and desperate refugees (hints: diversity. immigrant nation. opportunities for those who aren’t part of the ethnic majority).
If Thailand were a more attractive choice, more people would be circumventing their system. Lovely place to visit, as they say, but…
I’ve been to so many real-world ethnostates, it’s hard for me to have negative views about it. I was in Japan, and everything there is Japanese, they want to keep it Japanese forever, the only ethnic tension they have is with a tiny Korean minority there, and … it’s a great place! I really admire Japan, although I understand I could never be accepted there. Israel is, I would say, an ethnostate, and I have been there many times, and I love it too, despite the chaos that they seem to have there. My friend from Armenia (Econonist’s Country of the Year) keeps telling me how great it is and I have to visit it. I’ve been to some Eastern European countries too that are ethnostates basically and there are enough positives about it that it’s hard to dismiss it as something that’s not worthy of debate. And if it really is such a negative thing, why isn’t anyone clamoring for diversifying Israel, Japan, Armenia, etc? Also we’ve seen some countries like Australia go backwards. They used to allow people to show up by boat and stay, and now they don’t. Is Australia suffering because of this change?
Actually Thailand is a pretty attractive place and people wish they could circumvent the system. I actually was on a bus near the Burmese border and saw Thai police get on and summarily deport a woman who I assume was Burmese. They would be flooded with Burmese migrants if they allowed illegal immigration. They also vigorously enforce visa overstays there. Anyone who overstays on a tourist visa gets fined and can easily get kicked out for it.
I’m going to guess you were never in the right area to run into any Ainu people.
On March 27, 1997, the Sapporo District Court decided a landmark case that, for the first time in Japanese history, recognized the right of the Ainu people to enjoy their distinct culture and traditions.
I never did go to the area where they were, unfortunately but I’m certainly aware of them and I hope sometime to go to Hokkaido, where the Ainu are, and where I could go whiskey tasting too. Hokkaido is at the top of my list of places to go next time I have a chance. Ainu today is a tiny group, tens of thousands remaining. I just didn’t want to be totally pedantic in my post. There are some other minority groups in Japan too, but not many. There’s also a remnant of a caste system, with a Japanese outcast group called Burakumin, which still exists to some extent. Nothing in the real world is “pure”, but that doesn’t mean that Japan isn’t an ethnostate.
And apparently increasing numbers of aged Germans who are doing the German version of the Best Exotic Marigold Hotel retirement home thing. Some of whom also fall into your second category but not all.
Regardless, there doesn’t seem to be any difficult in them getting visas…
True. Some nation-states with tough ethnicity-based immigration policies, especially those in warmer climes, will make allowances and exceptions for (relatively speaking) affluent retirees as long as they stick to their own enclaves and don’t participate in the political life of the country or use its social services. In some of these countries the retirees are prohibited from owning the real estate where they live, although there are usually work-arounds.
