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.
