World - Map Shows World's 'most Racist' Countries | Sikh Philosophy Network
  • Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

World Map Shows World's 'most Racist' Countries

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jun 30, 2004
5,028
7,180
Henderson, NV.
Map shows world's 'most racist' countries (and the answers may surprise you)

Hong Kong, Bangladesh, Jordan and India named least tolerant countries
U.S., Britain, Canada and South America are among the least racist
Survey asks people if they would want neighbours of a different race

By Hugo Gye

Britain is one of the most racially tolerant countries on the planet, a survey claims.

The global social attitudes study claims that the most racially intolerant populations are all in the developing world, with Bangladesh, Jordan and India in the top five.

By contrast, the study of 80 countries over three decades found Western countries were most accepting of other cultures with Britain, the U.S., Canada and Australia more tolerant than anywhere else

The data came from the World Value Survey, which measured the social attitudes of people in different countries, as reported by the Washington Post.

The survey asked individuals what types of people they would refuse to live next to, and counted how many chose the option 'people of a different race' as a percentage for each country.

Researchers have suggested that societies where more people do not want neighbours from other races can be considered less racially tolerant.

The country with the highest proportion of 'intolerant' people who wanted neighbours similar to them was Hong Kong, where 71.8 per cent of the population would refuse to live next to someone of a different race.

Next were Bangladesh on 71.7 per cent, Jordan on 51.4 per cent and India with 43.5 per cent.

Racist views are strikingly rare in the U.S., according to the survey, which claims that only 3.8 per cent of residents are reluctant to have a neighbour of another race.

Other English-speaking countries once part of the British Empire shared the same tolerant attitude - fewer than five per cent of Britons, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders showed signs of racism.

People in the UK are also tolerant of other differences such as speaking a foreign language or practising an alternative religion - for example, fewer than two per cent of Britons would object to having neighbours of a different faith to them.

Similarly, fewer than one in 20 people in most South American countries admitted harbouring prejudice against other races.

The Middle East, which is currently dealing with large numbers of low-skilled immigrants from south Asia, seems to be a hotbed of racial tension, however.

Europe is remarkably split - the west of the continent is generally more tolerant than the east, but France is a striking outlier with 22.7 per cent of the French rejecting neighbourhood diversity.

Some have pointed out problems in the survey data, claiming that because the polls span a long period of time they are an unreliable guide to current attitudes.

However, a more serious flaw could be the fact that in most Western countries racism is so taboo than many people will hide their intolerant views and lie to the questioners.

Max Fisher of the Washington Post suggested that maybe 'Americans are conditioned by their education and media to keep these sorts of racial preferences private, i.e. to lie about them on surveys, in a way that Indians might not be'.

THE LEAST RACIALLY TOLERANT COUNTRIES

40% + (of individuals surveyed would not want a person of another race as a neighbour)

India, Jordan, Bangladesh, Hong Kong

30 - 39.9% (of individuals surveyed would not want a person of another race as a neighbour)

Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Vietnam, Indonesia, South Korea

20 - 39.9% (of individuals surveyed would not want a person of another race as a neighbour)

France, Turkey, Bulgaria, Algeria, Morocco, Mali, Zambia, Thailand, Malaysia, The Philippines

THE MOST TOLERANT COUNTRIES

0 to 4.9% (of individuals surveyed would not want a person of another race as a neighbour)

United States, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Guatemala, Britain, Sweden, Norway, Latvia, Australia, New Zealand

5 - 9.9% (of individuals surveyed would not want a person of another race as a neighbour)

Chile, Peru, Mexico, Spain, Germany, Belgium, Belarus, Croatia, Japan, Pakistan, South Africa

10 - 14.9% (of individuals surveyed would not want a person of another race as a neighbour)

Finland, Poland, Ukraine, Italy, Greece, Czech Republic, Slovakia

15 - 19.9% (of individuals surveyed would not want a person of another race as a neighbour)

Venezuela, Hungary, Serbia, Romania, Macedonia, Ethiopia, Uganda, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Russia, China

Source: World Values Survey

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325502/Map-shows-worlds-racist-countries-answers-surprise-you.html#ixzz2TbnMQpkQ
 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,206
Tej ji

I am actually very familiar with the World Values Survey and the database that it creates. It is a very complex survey.

One thing I would question about the article. Though there is indeed a question about willingness/unwillingness to live next to a person of a different race, the question is measuring one aspect of "intolerance." The article makes a jump from intolerance to "racism." Racism could be a much broader social ill than simply expressing concern about the race of a neighbor. I wonder if that is a legitimate inference, or media headline hype.
 

Luckysingh

Writer
SPNer
Dec 4, 2011
1,633
2,753
Vancouver
According to the survey, India is one of the most racist countries (top 4) and Pakistan is one of the most tolerant and least racist !!!

India in the top 4 isn't doing itself any favors in the media lately.
A country well known for corruption where you can't ever trust a police officer or a priest and now even a doctor, because they are interested in selling your organs !!- we now realize that India won't even tolerate people from other races either!!!

Then there's Russia that is also showing as tolerant and least racist ! Remembering that here a soccer club can't buy colored or non-white players because the fans don't want them !!
I can't understand how Australia is also in the most tolerant and least racist !
 
Last edited:

Ishna

Enthusiast
Writer
SPNer
May 9, 2006
3,249
5,182
Racism is another glorious human quality. Dividing it up into countries proves nothing IMHO. There are racist people everywhere.

Perhaps the thing is that Australia (I can't speak for other countries) is incredibly multicultural. Us whiteys make jokes sometimes like "I walked down the main mall in the city and played Spot the Aussie", meaning there were so many people of other nationalities there that it didn't seem like a majority-Australian place. Consider how multicultural Australia is and compare that to reported incidence of racism and let me know what you think.

I was at the discount variety shop today and for the first time in my life I saw prayer mats for sale. I've never seen a prayer mat before. They were bright red and only $1!
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,206
According to the survey, India is one of the most racist countries (top 4) and Pakistan is one of the most tolerant and least racist !!!

Then there's Russia that is also showing as tolerant and least racist ! Remembering that here a soccer club can't buy colored or non-white players because the fans don't want them !!
I can't understand how Australia is also in the most tolerant and least racist !
Yes.. see those conclusions are what is baffling to me. The "racism" quotient is based on the reply to one question only. Intolerance of someone of a different race living next door to me is one thin slice of what racism adds up to. When you read of other incidents particularly about those countries that suppress immigrant minorities in all kinds of ways, it makse a person wonder if the survey is asking the right questions.

Compare for example, the exploitation and abuse of women from Philippines who are maids and nannies in Saudi Arabia and the UAE to women from Guatemala having similar experiences in the US. Who is more racist? Very odd.
 
Last edited:

Brother Onam

Writer
SPNer
Jul 11, 2012
274
640
58
A quick glance at this map reveals to me there must be different ways of defining "racism".
It looks like U.S.A., Australia, Argentina, and New Zealand are among the dark blue (ie' non-racist') nations. If you know anything of history, these are countries that not only discriminated or oppressed 'minorities', they exterminated the native populations - extinguished them- to make available their land for white people. That's racism.
 
Jul 13, 2004
2,364
381
48
Canada
A quick glance at this map reveals to me there must be different ways of defining "racism".
It looks like U.S.A., Australia, Argentina, and New Zealand are among the dark blue (ie' non-racist') nations. If you know anything of history, these are countries that not only discriminated or oppressed 'minorities', they exterminated the native populations - extinguished them- to make available their land for white people. That's racism.
Agreed.
 

Admin

SPNer
Jun 1, 2004
6,636
5,223
SPN
A quick glance at this map reveals to me there must be different ways of defining "racism".
It looks like U.S.A., Australia, Argentina, and New Zealand are among the dark blue (ie' non-racist') nations. If you know anything of history, these are countries that not only discriminated or oppressed 'minorities', they exterminated the native populations - extinguished them- to make available their land for white people. That's racism.
Well, if we go back to history of every present nation, then we will find traces of intolerance against races/ethnicity and this circle goes on and on... Syria, Egypt, Somaliya and list goes on and on... its is naive to pin point fingers at any nation and on what basis? :angryyoungsingh:
 

Brother Onam

Writer
SPNer
Jul 11, 2012
274
640
58
Honourable Aman Singh ji,
Intolerance against races does indeed appear to be consistant throughout our world and history, I am drawing a line, though, between stupidity-based bigotry and out-and-out, systematic genocide. Especially if the country thus 'cleansed' then prides itself on open-mindedness and prosperity.
it is too easy to think of these horrors as historical misfortunes, but we ought never forget the human side of these, as it was experienced by those afflicted. Too often these purgings, whether in Guatemala, Kosovo, Tasmania, Wounded Knee, on and on, involved shooting mothers shielding babies.
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,206
At what point is a society released from the sins of it's past?

http://www.smh.com.au/multimedia/2008/national/australia-says-sorry/main.html

Ishna ji

Just my observation from reading history ... which btw was never a huge interest of mine until I landed at SPN. To continue, the short answer is "never;" and in the case of the powerful, societies' perceptions that the powerful are guilty of oppressing the weak will be intense as long as the powerful are powerful. That is what the powerful do: they oppress.

The United States was never guilty of much in the perceptions of the rest of the world until World War I. Before that the US was an agricultural country with vast land masses and resources, coupled with an isolationist mindset. It was fortified by 2 oceans. Becoming involved in the affairs of other countries was of little interest to its citizenry. Before World War I, the US's greatest imperialist sins were related to land conquests and cultural destruction of native americans and Mexico; the rest of the world cared little. The rest of the world just wasn't paying attention; the US was not a player on the world stage.

After World War II, all that changed. Isolationism, still a strong theme among nearly 50 percent of the US electorate, ceased to be a political option once alliances with other countries were formed. The US was now playing on the international stage.

Strategic interests and strategic alliances (economic, political and military) mandate demonstrations of power in order to stay in power. I could be talking about the US, the Persian empire, the Ottoman empire, or the Ming Dynasty. Whether economic, political or military, conquest breeds both oppression and resentment. The resentment sticks because the powerful privilege themselves in ways that humiliate the conquered. Humilation breeds dependency, dependency breeds frustration, and frustration breeds anger, which breeds in turn a voice of its own.

Today the US has wavered on its Syrian policy. Yesterday it was certain of its Afghanistan policy. The day before yesterday it felt entitled to engage in lies and pretense on its Iraq policy. It has appeared to be ambivalent about its Pakistan policy. Periodically it has been positively inclined toward Palestine. These policy shifts are not dependent on moral perspective. That is why there is little forgiveness.

I would say this story has repeated itself many times throughout history. Armenians still remember their holocaust at the hands of the Turks. Ireland still stings from its British conquest. If you have time to read a really good book that suggests that the history of human civilization is played out with a very small number of scripts, and they are nearly all about either fools or tyrants, try Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco.
 
Last edited:

Brother Onam

Writer
SPNer
Jul 11, 2012
274
640
58
Praise be to Waheguru forever,
I'm just a small, dusty dog, but I've been around a little and seen a few things:
In the strange reverse-myopia (?) that seems to fog our vision, we are often too ready to consign great injustices to the far-away past, washing our hands of any possible participation. When we speak of the unbridled plunder of Africa during the "Great Scramble for Africa", we don't want to admit that this plundering is, if anything, even worse today.
When we think of the massacres and corralling onto reservations of Native Americans of the 19th century, we don't want to contemplate that even now radio-active waste gets dumped there, and if uranium or gold are discovered on their reservations, even the beaten remnant of the Indians gets abused anew.
We often hear how it's time to "move on" and let bygones be bygones concerning the abominable slave-trade that built the U.S.A., but are often unable to acknowledge why America is now so "great", having been created by millions of unpaid, abused, oppressed captives, whose psychological scars are now pooh-poohed.
In the wake of historic abuses, the only real remedy is not to forget the past but rather to engage in a complete cessation of hostilities, which, as I said, too often continue unabated albeit unacknowledged, as well as a program of reparations.
When the primary impact such victorious nations have with their victims is one of amends and remediation, then we can begin to discuss moving on.
As long as exploitation and geo-political strategy prevails while charity is a nicety or an afterthought, no genuine healing will come.
Apologizing for apartheid, extermination, Jim Crow, lynching, genocide, while contiuing to live in the favourable inequalities thus established is a sham.
Sorry for the many words.
 
Aug 27, 2005
328
223
71
Baltimore Md USA
A quick glance at this map reveals to me there must be different ways of defining "racism".
It looks like U.S.A., Australia, Argentina, and New Zealand are among the dark blue (ie' non-racist') nations. If you know anything of history, these are countries that not only discriminated or oppressed 'minorities', they exterminated the native populations - extinguished them- to make available their land for white people. That's racism.
Namaste

What you say is historically true but the survey is of people alive today. People in America can anywhere they want if they can afford the house.
What I don't know about this survey is who they asked. If I were a recent immigrant from Mexico or another South American country I would prefer my first residence to be in a neighborhood with more people like me but that is not racism in a negative sense so much as acclimatization.

Hong Kong surprises me but I guess if the new neighbor British that would be a different case. In Muslim countries your sect is almost as important as ethnicity, meaning if you are a Hazerra (please excuse my spelling) Shia the majority Sunnis would never want you close by except to blow up you and as many of your friends as possible.
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,206
More from the World Values Survey
Who is most/least arrogant? Who is most/least trustworthy? Who is most/least compassionate? Who dislikes Germany the most? and other questions like these are answered.


"Are the French Really Rude?"
By Karina Martinez-Carter


While universal stereotypes might often point toward France as being Europe’s “most arrogant” country, a new survey from the Pew Research Global Attitudes Project takes the above Fast Track report one step further. According to the most recent data, Germany is actually seen as the haughtiest, with France coming in second.

Taking into account the opinions of 7,600 people in Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland, Greece and the Czech Republic, here are the other titles Europeans have given to themselves and to each other:

Continue reading at this link http://www.bbc.com/travel/feature/20130516-are-the-french-really-rude
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Shabad Vichaar by SPN'ers

ਗਉੜੀ ਮਹੱਲਾ ॥੫॥ Raag Gauri | Guru Granth Sahib 199

ਗਰੀਬਾ ਊਪਰਿ ਜਿ ਖਿੰਜੈ ਦਾੜੀ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਸ ਅਗਨਿ ਮਹਿ ਸਾੜੀ ॥੧॥ ਪੂਰਾ ਨਿਆਉ ਕਰੇ ਕਰਤਾਰੁ ਅਪੁਨੇ ਦਾਸ ਕਉ ਰਾਖਨਹਾਰ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

ਆਦਿ ਜੁਗਾਦਿ ਪਰਗਟੀ...

SPN on Facebook

...
Top