Am stunned that this is allowed

[Felicia1]

France, a nation state made up of the French, descendants of the Germanic Frankish tribes, are white peoples. Ireland, Irish people, descendants of the celts, who are white.

There’s no problem stating a fact that a country is currently or was historically majority white. The problem is believing:

Do I have a problem with whites becoming minorities in their own country’s? Yeah, I do.

There are still people alive who remember where that belief led in the '30s and '40s.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

That’s quite the leap in logic. So anyone who opposes immigration has to be a white supremacist?

Not necessarily, but anyone who believes in “white countries” and wants to restrict immigration based on racial categorisation of immigrants in order to preserve the “whiteness” of said countries certainly is.

Are you being serious? Every country in Europe is named after the nationality of people that have lived in for Millennia. The whole concept of a nation state is that it is a state, for the nationality of people that live in it (this is why the US isn’t a nation state, because it’s a plurality of different nationalities.)

Ethnicity as it is conceived by 21st century people - as rooted in biology, as being immutable, and including concepts such as “whiteness” or “blackness” - are recent concepts, and can’t be divorced from the partitioning of the world by Europeans in the early modern period.

European people are white, therefore, European country’s are white country’s.

Yet lots of people who physically appear to be white have not historically been considered white. The Italians, Slavic people, and the Spanish have not always been considered white, and even today many people will not consider Jews to be white despite the colour of their skin. Clearly “whiteness” is not a fixed, immutable, transhistorical thing - it’s a cultural perception that can and has changed. It isn’t a fact of nature. The idea of “white countries” can’t be defended as historical fact, and it necessarily implies racist conceptions of people that fall outside of being white.

This shouldn’t be a controversial statement it’s common sense.

If it’s a common sense thing, then why has it not remained consistent throughout history?

 

[Neithan]

OK, thanks for the informative post. I hope you’re right, but I don’t see the point in arguing it (it’s all speculative).

 

[Moose]

Story has been debunked.
Wasn’t assisted suicide… she starved herself to death - with her parents approval, apparently.
Not sure that is much better or any different.

 

[otjm]

It is a bit akin to saying that if someone wants to keep digging a hole, perhaps they need a bigger shovel; the point being that one would presume sanity would eventually prevail and they would stop digging.

One could certainly say there is evidence of this within the US; Roe vs. Wade was decided in January of 1973, and after that abortions started to increase per year; over the lat several years they have been decreasing. Change? Those in their 20’s (and I am presuming, for the moment, that this would be the age group likely to have the largest % of abortions) had children; Post 1993 those children are now in their 20’s; post 2013 the grandchildren are in their 20’s. By the time we get to the grandchildren, they are starting to figure out that a significant percentage of what would have been their high school graduating class were aborted; they are seeing through the rhetoric of “the mother’s body” and the science that it is truly a human being, not a mass of tissue; in short, the absolutist attitude of the hard core pro abortionist are being seen for what it is. The hole has been dug deep enough that people are learning that digging deeper is not an answer.

In short, eventually common sense starts to reappear. No one is going to reduce abortions, or euthanasia, or sex change operations, or any of the other chaos which is anti-life until they see and understand the horror of it. And as Voltaire said, the problem with common sense is that it is not all that common.

 

[po18guy]

Euthanasia? Heck, that’s nothing!

In Washington State, her parents could have composted her along with last evenings leftovers!

Come, Lord Jesus!

 

[otjm]

I don’t think the poster was suggesting that abortion and euthanasia would kill off the entire population. But there are a multiple of issues which together can and will impact the countries significantly. The question then becomes when the remaining population figures it out. Certainly in the US, statistics have indicated that pro life has been gaining ground and appears to be better than 50%.

 

[otjm]

They have a lot of company; and at least one country seems to have figured out the impending clash.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

Historically, nationality and ethnicity were one and the same. It is only recently that has changed.

Actually, no. On the contrary.

Under the Feudal system in Europe, it didn’t matter what language you spoke, what ethnicity you had, what religion you had, what culture you adhered to. You served your king or emperor and were thus part of the country of that king or emperor. Your allegiance could change at will, because another king or emperor conqueed the particular bit of land you were farming, or sold it, or gave it away in a dowry. From one day to the next you served a different lord and a different country and were expected to be preared to die for that country in battle.

This was the old fashioned concept of non-nationalist patriotism, dating from Roman times. People were essentially the property of ther rulers.

The whole concept of colonialism was just an extsnsion of that. The old empires were truly cosmopolitan constructs. Countries and cultures that had little in common were tied together and might made right.

Then came the 1848 revolutions. People discovered the concept of nation and nationalism, and claimed to be a nation not because of having a common leader or being part of a common empire, but they claimed to be a nation because they shared a language, a religion, a culture with the people around them, and demanded to be recognized as a nation based on those concepts.

In fact democracy and nationalism were closely intertwined and I don’t think that people at the time thought the two could be separated. Being part of a nation gave you inalenable rights, including democratic ones. But the old empires were not amused, and besides making some small concessions, they crushed the new nationalist and democratic movements and restored the rights of the old rulers.

But these ideas didn’t die. They simmered on, waiting for their moment.

Then came the First World War, and the peace treaties that followd it. The old empires were dismantled (well, actually only the ones who lost) and Europe was carved up into numerous new nation states, based on ethnic nationalism. In many places, the borders were drawn incorrectly. There was power play and corruption at the negotiating table and people were working from incorrect and manipluated data. There were areas of mixed ethnicity and there was forced assimilation and ethnic cleansing and all the wars fought in Europe since, especially the recent ones, were started over such issues. They also very rarely actually solved them but just postponed the problems for future generations to work out.

When Macron said, the First World War was fought to overcome nationalism, he was totqlly wrong . Ther First World War was the birth of nationalism as a geopolitical force. Had that war been avoided, or the peace setteled differently, nationalism might not even be a thing today.

But despite all this, I would claim nationalism has been a force for the betterment of humanity. Without it, we would probably not have the widespread establishment of democacy we have today.

 

[anon99031074]

This is really saddening. Her parents should be ashamed for letting this happen.
I’m disgusted and sad at the same time. Many people would give anything for a healthier body or longer life.

I have to ask:

Where is the free will argument that is used to defend eternal suffering in hell? If a teenage couple are having premarital sex, knowing it is a sin, and they get killed before they have the time to get married and confess their sins, then their heavenly father will respect their “free choice” to prioritize sex above a relationship with him, and allow them to descend to the fiery pit forever. No intervention there. No restricting their choices.

Why should earthly parents be ashamed of allowing their child the free choice of taking their own life, when their heavenly father allows them to freely choose something, far, far worse than mere physical death? If they are bad parents, then God must be the most horrible parent in the universe?

 

[JanetF]

I’m of the belief that her mental illness would invoke God’s mercy

 

[Anrakyr]

I’m just worried for her soul. I hope she doesn’t go to hell

Why would she?

I came here to say this. She was knocked back by the euthanasia clinic. It seems that their response was similar to ours.

Indeed, she wasn’t ‘legally’ permitted to end her life. She starved herself to death because no one would help her die.

Can you fathom how much anguish someone is in to take one of the worst ways to go?

 

[Sarcelle]

She must have been in such psychic pain that she starved herself.

Praying for her.