Nationality and ethnicity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Londoner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The number of people who think the government schools are indoctrinating students is probably higher than among the general population, but still a very small part of homeschoolers in general
 
Yes, I didn’t imagine all homeschoolers were into these strange ideas, but I have certainly read this kind of thing and found it a very peculiar way of thinking.
 
Would you also wish every Frenchman to speak French, the native language of the country, as their primary language? And to be Catholic since France is primarily a Catholic nation? Are these necessary requirements as well as being white? Also, what if the first two requirements are met but the French person is not white: would that suffice? Would any two of three or four requirements be sufficient including race, color, religion, and language; three out of four; or all four necessary? Finally, where do regional customs fit in such as food, clothing, and so on?
 
Last edited:
Well that’s a character defect you can work on with God’s help.
 
The question is, how do you decide who gets a say and who doesn’t? Property qualifications? Literacy test? Exclude women? Raise the voting age? All those have been tried and failed. In the UK we even used to allow university graduates two votes and non-graduates one vote (universities used to have their own seats in parliament and graduates could vote for the constituency where they lived and also for the university seat).
 
Interesting.

Well what kinds of people have a greater “earthly” value than others?

What kinds of things form the construction of the relative “earthly” value of human beings?

I don’t really think this jives with Church teaching but I sure am interested in hearing you expound a bit on your notion of the stated falsehood of the equality of man.
 
Last edited:
repentant2 said:
A proper society is ordered through a hierarchy that has each member playing their part. Not bemoaning their status but accepting their duty and performing it so as to contribute to the common good, peace, and stability.
Click to expand...
Who or what determines the rank of each member of society?

It is race, like the apartheid of South Africa, is it the caste system of India?

Who determines how high up in society one can one go?

Is someone who is a gifted leader but was born in a lowly family be allowed to go up in society?

My mother was born to a poor family but got herself a graduate degree in economics. Should she be allowed to get higher education or should she have been told to be contented with her lot and remain poor?

I personally think it is required of us all to remain humble and serve each other no matter the circumstances of our lives, which can change at any moment. There shall be no lording over others.
 
Last edited:
repentant2 said:
Modern leaders, such as Trump or Merkel, of low birth and acting for personal gain could never hope to be an equal to a man such as St. Louis.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that the qualities that made a good leader in the 13th century are necessarily the same qualities that make a good leader today. I don’t think that “high” or “low” birth has anything to do with it. Donald Trump is the son of a real estate developer and a housewife. Angela Merkel is the daughter of a pastor and a teacher.

By a neat coincidence, Václav Havel was also the son of a real estate developer. His “low” birth didn’t prevent his becoming a great statesman. Lech Wałęsa was the son of a carpenter, which I guess is even “lower”. Ronald Reagan’s father was a traveling salesman. Margaret Thatcher’s father was a grocer (and, not unlike Merkel’s father, a preacher). Mikhail Gorbachev was born a peasant, which I guess is just about the “lowest” birth possible.

Going further back in history, David Lloyd George, consistently regarded as one of Britain’s greatest statesmen, was the son of a teacher. Following his father’s death, his mother took him to live with her brother, a Protestant minister. That is again a similar background to Merkel.

Winston Churchill, of course, was of “high” birth, being a grandson of the 7th Duke of Marlborough and a scion of several other noble families. However, his wartime deputy, and postwar successor, Clement Attlee, was merely the son of a suburban solicitor. As minister of supply and then home secretary, Herbert Morrison played a crucial role in Churchill’s war cabinet, and as deputy prime minister, leader of the House of Commons, and lord president of the Council in Attlee’s postwar government, he is credited with much of the success of Britain’s postwar reconstruction. And yet Morrison was the son of a policeman and had no education beyond the age of 14. Finally, Ernest Bevin, minister of labour and national service for almost the whole duration of the war, went on to become foreign secretary and played a vital role in establishing Britain as an opponent of the Soviet Union, taking us into NATO as founding members, and creating Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent. Bevin was of such “low” birth that his father’s identity is unknown. He began work as a labourer at the age of 11, though only after becoming the first member of his family to be able to read.

Conversely, Edward VIII was the eldest son of an emperor, which I guess is “highest” level of birth possible, but it didn’t seem to do him much good.
 
Last edited:
repentant2 said:
proper society is ordered through a hierarchy that has each member playing their part. Not bemoaning their status but accepting their duty and performing it so as to contribute to the common good, peace, and stability.
Click to expand...
The Church started the complete education system, notably universities. And the Church did not discriminate on the basis of station in life but elevated through education those who showed the necessary individual qualities. Thus, there are popes and saints who came from poor families.

And who knows what the family back ground is of someone? I recall a certain great leader who was the son of a carpenter… but Who came from royal stock.

Jes’ sayin’ 😉
 
As someone of low birth I just feel lucky to be able to engage in such an enlightening conversation!
 
A teacher explained the concept of equal opportunity. In an orchard: the fruit can easily be reached by a man possessing a height of 6 ft.; another, of less height might be successful through great stretching contortions combined with well timed leaps; yet another is provided a step stool, or a ladder. Is the tallest man more deserving of the fruit of his labour, than either of the others?
 
Because societies throughout history have almost overwhelmingly been organized by race, with the conquered race forming the lower strata of the pyramid and the conquering race the upper.
 
There is no such thing as “low birth”. No work is ignoble, and neither is unflashiness. God was born in a stable, to a poor Jewish peasant woman. You’d think he was trying to make a point, but it’s of course lost on some people. Low birth and high birth, hierarchy, bloodline, and royalty are nothing more than concepts created by Man and substantiated only by Man’s continued belief in them.
 
Last edited:
Humility is a virtue we should all be committed to practicing.

This goes for everyone no matter the station in life.
 
repentant2 said:
A proper society is ordered through a hierarchy that has each member playing their part. Not bemoaning their status but accepting their duty and performing it so as to contribute to the common good, peace, and stability.
Click to expand...
It’s this mentality that built the guillotines in France. We have no duty to society’s hierarchy. And in our day and age that hierarchy is purely social and economic. Just look at the Kardashians to see how that hierarchy can be smashed - for better or for worse.
 
No, they thought of themselves as tribes or peoples, but not of races. Most wars have been fought with nearby people, who generally resembled the aggressors.
 
As somebody of “low birth”, don’t you find it inspiring to think of somebody like Alexander Dubček, another carpenter’s son, becoming a great leader for his people? Of course, history does also produce some great leaders of “high birth” - King Michael I of Romania, King George VI of the United Kingdom, for example.
 
Last edited:
repentant2 said:
At least under the British Empire the various locales had a semblance of stability, if not self determination.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the Irish. Or the 1100 or so Indians Reginald Dyer butchered in their own country.

Or maybe the United States. Who fought a war because the opposite of what you said.
 
Last edited:
You may not be able to reach the top shelf but you both be capable of the same physical tasks.

Formal education does not equal intelligence. I have met many people with advanced degrees but were completely useless outside their specialty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top