Or do you have _evidence_?
The term is used to describe the stages a country has been through, and there’s plenty of evidence that as countries develop further, the nature of those developments may or may not be beneficial.
Brexit, online safety and other forms of “progress” come to mind.
I don’t think it was supposed to be aspirational.
Note that I carefully did not say anything about what abuse is. Unfortunately there is no agreement and I don't want to get into that debate (it is well worth having, but it would change the direction I'm trying to go here).
Honest question, trying to parse your statement (and bear in mind I don't live in Europe, so I'm surely missing the obvious): do you mean that in Denmark there is a bias against Eastern Europeans, such as Romanians?
Edit: excellent, got a downvote for asking an honest question and clarifying why I wrote it. Is this an example of the fine discourse we are supposed to have here? This is an honest question, I'm neither European nor a native English speaker and I have difficulty parsing the sentence I quoted. How on earth does this warrant downvotes?
According to Wikipedia, as to the distribution of this condition,
> The birthmark is prevalent among East, South, Southeast, North and Central Asian peoples, Indigenous Oceanians (chiefly Micronesians and Polynesians), certain populations in Africa, Amerindians, non-European Latin Americans and Caribbeans of mixed-race descent.
So you can see how, in a Western European nation, even if no-one is being biased in the sense of "hating foreigners", the false accusations would cluster in "non-indigenous" populations, for want of a better word (I originally had "immigrants" then realised that isn't the correct split I'm looking for.). Personally I believe there is no defense for doctors, courts and social workers not knowing about this and checking for it before making any accusations.
This doesn't seem to apply to Romanians / Eastern Europeans specifically, unless they have partly Asian ancestry, but it does show that there are conditions that can be mistaken for abuse that appear in some cultures more than others.
Given a more developed country, I'd presume there are more people willing to adopt/do foster care for the right reasons and the social workers can regularly check upon the welfare of the child, thus there can be legitimate reasons to lower the threshold of taking a child out of a family setting vs a less developed country.
Did you mean: richer?
Homeschooling is debatable, if the children are evaluated to be equal to their regular schooled peers, I don't think the child should be taken out of the family environment, but should be subject to further wellness checks by social workers.
I'm sure that you're not doing that here, but unfortunately people with genuinely honest questions have become collateral damage caused by disingenuous actors, especially among people with itchy downvote-trigger-fingers.
Thankfully people have responded and now I both understand the sentence and the why!
I'm guessing if some kind of Commanche social worker turned up to look at a case of blue spot, they'd go "Yeah that's a birthmark, about half our children have it, our nation even has legends about it. Have a nice day!".
A challenge is where the ripped-off children wind up, a foster home system with it's own abuse issues.
There may be some overlap between systemic racial mistreatment and child abuse - however the nuances seem to set them far apart. I believe conflating the two makes it harder to get the full measure of each.
It's not that they can't be compared. It's that they ought to be fully considered in isolation first.
This wasn't SBS though, she just kept adopting out her kids to devote more time to her drug habits.
If the same "tactic" is used, why not come up with a good counter? A point stands whether it's being asked disingenuously or not.
The (darkly) funny thing in the case of Germany is that this lack of diversity in education has created a generation with the fertility rate of South Korea (ie dying).
In this case, the state creating a monoculture that results in the ‘destruction’ of the existing state goes to show why evolution values diversity far more than monocultures.
I don't think the term Roma has a bad association, because in my experience nobody but the most woke even know it. That is the PC term. People I've encountered just use gypsy or their local equivalent.
> like Saudi Arabia is rich but not developed imho > good education, infrastructure, medical care, human rights, clean environment
Saudi Arabia's record on human rights is truly horrible (for example, recently they've started murdering refugees[0]), but the idea of whether a country is "developed" seems to be highly subjective, imho. I don't know for sure (never been to Saudi Arabia), but I'm guessing they check off all the boxes except for human rights[1]. (About a clean environment--I imagine they'd be as clean as Abu Dhabi or Dubai (the UAE) which were a lot cleaner imo or on par with Western cities. I guess this is a matter of subjective matter, but is human rights a dimension a country has to have in order to be considered developed? If human rights is indeed a dimension that needs to be satisfied, would that mean that the brutal treatment of black and brown minorities in the US by the police would make the U.S. a country that's not developed?
I'm asking this since Western European countries also have a track record that has historically surpassed world records for brutality. For example, Belgium[1] was chopping off the hands of African tribal people they had forced into labor (effectively enslaved), Germany murdered 6 million innocent Jewish people[2] and had a habit murdering people even before the Nazis in its colonies as well[3], the British were responsible for numerous famines in India as well as famine in Ireland as well as other atrocities[4], the French committed atrocities[5], so did the Netherlands and the Dutch with the East India Company[6], and Spain and Portugal (along with England and others) were highly culpable in the murder of millions of Native Americans[7].
Did these actions, at least temporarily, render these Western European countries as "not developed" countries?
[0][a] https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/08/21/saudi-arabia-mass-killin...
[0][b] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/26/world/middleeast/saudi-ki...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_S...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide
[4] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/worst-atroci...
[5] https://newlinesmag.com/newsletter/the-dark-legacy-of-french...
[6] https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/10/dutch-colonial-history-...
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_Indigenous_peoples
Who has more authority over their children and in which domains?
Medical providers, can they ruin kids' lives in various ways? It's easy to manipulate worried parents.
Schools, do teachers have authority over their classroom, how much? Can they override parents, for example when rescuing them from anti-LGBT?
Nobody trusts churches anymore, so that's not really a problem.