There is no right to self determination for every ethnic group. Self determination gives all people the right to have a say in the affairs of the state in which they reside; it doesn’t mean every self-identified division of people gets a country.
So would it have been OK if a French woman applied for Saudi citizenship and refused to wear a buqa to the ceremony? Or is it only western civilization that needs to accommodate divetsity?
In your worldview it doesn’t really matter much. If Tibet hadn’t been conquered by military force, it would have just been overwhelmed demographically by Han Chinese due to their obligation to take in whoever wanted to come seeking a better life.
I can see a future where ethnic states are obsolete, but even then states will be formed based on ideas and common values.
In the case of the Serbs, they have a homeland. They can choose to be minorities in Germany or live in their homeland. There are also peoples so tiny in number that they could not form a viable state. However, where there are large peoples who want to live in their own state, I support their rights. And I especially support the rights of small states neighboring big states to avoid demographic doom, as well as small states that have built a good life for themselves by not being morons having to take in millions from failed states and thus ruin the good thing they’ve got going. Take Japan for example. A populous, but small nation, and one with a very unique way of life that is almost free of crime or strife. People are unfailingly polite to one another. I don’t think they have a moral obligation to ruin their society by importing millions of gaijin and thus increasing their crime, poverty, and general rudeness.
I don’t believe Tamerlane made a typo.
Sorbs, not Serbs.
Stanislaw Tillich, a sorbs, were Ministerpresident (governor, more or less) of Saxony for almost ten years, so it seems they are not exactly marginalised in German society. Though he probably had to (the horror) shake hands and generally be polite to lots of people to reach that position.
We have multiple homelands: France, Spain, Costa Rica, the US, Venezuela, Colombia, Peru, Australia, just to name the places from whom I personally know Basque people. Given that the idea that the Basque people should have their own separate nation-state is barely 100 years old and that so many of us took place of pride through our homelands’ histories, the idea that we’ve been “denied self-determination” during the about 1500 years between the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the birth of the Arana brothers is, charitably, misleading.
At 60-80K, I’m not really sure they can create a viable state.
The Basques kinda want one in a specific place.
Dude, I’m Basque. The majority of Basque do not want a specific place. Even the majority of Basque living in our ancestral homelands do not want a specific place: we already have it. We have many of them. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
If the Basques don’t mind not having their own state, that’s fine for them.
Because of secularists or because of the hatred from Muslim immigrants?
If France wants to ban Muslims, or ban all immigration from anywhere, they can do that. That’s not what happened in this particular case, though. The woman was being granted citizenship. The only thing that queered the deal was that she wouldn’t shake hands. She wasn’t being denied citizenship for being a Muslim, but for refusing to shake hands. That’s ridiculous.
[sub]10,000 posts![/sub]
I personally would similarly think they’re a bunch of idiots, too, so I’m not sure what the point is. I mean, sure, France has every right to demand new citizens to stick a thumb up their ass and whistle Le Marseillaise before being granted citizenship if they want, and I’m welcome to think they’re a bunch of l’assholes.
They made it a crime to boo the national anthem, their assholeishness was never in question. But all nations, universally, expect people wanting to be citizens to actually become citizens of the country they are applying for citizenship in. I realize some people just want it for the benefits, but countries expect loyalty and assimilation and have the right to demand it.
If you don’t bow are you not allowed to be a citizen of Japan? It’s a good contrast as Japan has as much of a sense of peoplehood as any nationality around, more than France I think, but there is no requirement that one bow, or eat sushi, or any such crud. Paperwork, lots of paperwork, yes.
You might not be happy there being someone who does not bow or respect traditions of the country. But it is not required.
How much French culture is tied to Catholicism and how much to their take on secularism (a version that is different than the American freedom of religion take) is debatable right now but accepting that French can Muslim? Of that the French seem to broadly agree: No. How much can it be visibly Jewish? Unclear.
For all of you playing along at home, this is a barely reworded version of that old standby, “Asia for the Asians, Africa for the Africans, White countries for everyone”, (alt-)right out of the “Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White” hymnal.
(My link goes to RationalWiki, some of the search results for these phrases go straight to StormFront.)
That doesn’t mean it’s wrong, although it’s more “rich countries are for everyone” since they’d really love Japan to mess up their whole country for the sake of making liberals feel better.
If you admit that it is bigotry, then you can’t turn around and say it’s not wrong. There are no excuses for bigotry. All you are describing is bigotry as an excuse for bigotry. You are allowing a human right to be abridged: the right of freedom of religion.
You’re an atheist, right? How would you like it if you could not be a citizen of the United States? We could just as easily ignore our freedom of religion charter and say that you don’t live up to “American” standards and kick you out.
What France is doing here is wrong. And, yes, it’s wrong when other countries do it. WTF would lead anyone to believe I would think otherwise? Freedom of religion is a natural human right that belongs to everyone. Any government that tries to take it away is infringing on people’s rights. It could be legitimately overthrown over this–though hopefully they can do that peacefully.
Bigotry is wrong. There may be debates about what exactly counts as bigotry, but bigotry is considered wrong by pretty much everyone. Hell, even bigots will turn around and say the other people are the real bigots–so they understand that bigotry is wrong.
You do realize you just defended saying that rich countries are for white people, right? The whole point of the statement is that the KKK thinks that white people should have their own countries, too.
I completely agree and, well, let’s be real here: freedom of religion as a human right is poorly implemented across the globe despite being part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as adopted by the U.N. without a single dissenting vote in 1948, Article 18:
[quote=Universal Declaration of Human Rights
]
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
[/quote]
The perspective that a nation and a cohesive culture can be a stew of different religious practices and observances co-existing is not as accepted as that Article would imply. More common is the view that “our” culture is the practices of [insert majority religion here] even if belief is not held, or “our” culture requires a lack of religious observation, at least of minority faiths, in the public sphere.
If the United States, the archetype nation of immigrants and “melting pot” can’t get through a December without silly Christmas wars in which those who don’t mouth “Merry Christmas” are considered un-American by large fractions of the country, then countries with less history and experience of being multicultural cultures doing poorly following through on that human right is no surprise.