Reply to post: Re: BTW: How did that work out?

Re: BTW: How did that work out?

No, I think you need to substantiate that claim.

Trivially easy, and yet the data isn't codified into a single metric.

Major countries - lets define that for arguments sake as the G7.

Numbers for racial equality aren't easy to find, but there is a set called the World Values Survey, explained below:

"The World Values Survey asked respondents from more than 80 countries dozens of questions, including one that asks respondents to identify types of people they would not want as neighbors. The researchers reasoned that the more people of a single country who respond that they would not want a neighbor of a different race, the less racially tolerant you could call that society."

So, lets take a look at what the numbers tell us then.

"Generally, the least racially tolerant countries were in Africa and Asia"

From that we can evidence that racism is not, contrary to the current trendy pretense, a white people thing.

Further:

"while the most tolerant countries were Latin countries, Scandinavian countries, and the United Kingdom and its former colonies (the United States, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand)."

So lets map those 4 nations back onto the G7. We can lose Australia. That sees the UK with a top 4 finish at the very least - among a field of almost 200 nations.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/least-racist-countries/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/

Now lets take a look not at what people say but by what they do.

In the UK "the vote was restricted to adult males and also by property qualifications, but never by race. The first black person known to have voted in a British election was Ignatius Sancho who qualified in Westminster in 1774 and 1780."

In America "After 1870 blacks were theoretically equal before the law, the period of time between the end of Reconstruction era and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 showed that racial equality has been inconsistent in American life."

So between 100 and almost 200 years later, just to gain recognition as equals. Bye bye America. That leaves Canada and New Zealand left.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_suffrage

Lets move on to who actually lives there then....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level#List_based_on_Alesina_et_al's_analysis

The UK works out at 54 for ethnic fractionalization vs NZ's 109th. Canada comes in at 181.

NZ literally belongs to the Maori people and yet they are routinely treated as being second class in their own lands. See literally any mainstream media outlet in NZ for details.

Canadians simply killed off almost everyone that originally lived there so its basically white European.

At this point, you're going to struggle to find any evidence to overturn what I've said, so we can probably consider this point made, case proven.

If not, and to all the muted downvoters, state your case. Which major country is less racist than the UK, and why?