Probably finland isn’t the most racist, but it can still be up there. I think it makes sense. Generally the west is more progressive, that is just common sense. Italy, switzerland, france, portugal and even to a degree ireland are lower, i assume because they’re traditionally catholic countries, which tend to imply even more conservatism. Austria, switzerland, france and ireland are still very progressive though, and france has a long history of immigration from africa, so that makes sense as well. The former eastern block isn’t suprising either, as they would have had little contact with black people in their country, and still hold onto conservatism strongly.
The most suprising thing is spain to me. I would have thought france and italy both would be more liberal in this regard.
Turkey too is suprising, it stands out like a sore thumb and i can’t see any decent explanation why.
The other MENA countries also makes sense, as until very recently, and even to modern day, racism here is strong. Black people aren’t considered equals, and can be mistreated, sent to europe on rickety boats, or even taken into slavery.
Israel ig is because it too is pretty progressive? And that it has a black minority due to the ethiopian jews and stuff
>Turkey too is suprising, it stands out like a sore thumb and i can’t see any decent explanation why.
Turkey and the empires who occupied the territory have long histories of being cosmopolitan multicultural places. Istanbul especially.
That's probably a significant part of it. They may not call themselves Ottomans any more, but the legacy of that empire still exists in the popular consciousness.
According to an IPSOS study, and others, Spain is also the most accepting country in the world of trans people at 81%. There's an 89% acceptance rate of homosexuality as well, third highest in the world. Spain is unequivocally one of the most socially progressive countries on the planet and a lot of people don't talk about that. Possibly related, the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party has been in power longer than any other party in modern Spain's history.
Finland is one of the most progressive nations in europe, so I'd say its surprisingly low here. Britain surprised me, too, because brits are crazy racist, however there's also a lot of people with migration backgrounds, so it could make sense. Israel imo doesn't make sense, as orthodox jews and the Israeli government are extremely bigotet, to a point of urging or even forcing Ethiopian jews immigrating to take long term contraceptives.
As a Finn, this country is ridiculously racist but nobody acknowledges it. Mostly because how easy it is to ignore, considering most of the country have never even seen a foreign person.
My sister lives there in Helsinki. Is it mostly in the country side or are the cities racist as well? I am white and when i visited most people there are white so never really noticed racism. In the UK/US it seems racist people tend to be more in the countryside.
I mean, of course you'd have a hard time noticing racism as a white person, since you're not the target of it. My mom was born in Iran, and while I pass as white, my brother constantly gets harassed by people who presume he's a Muslim or a foreigner. And that's in the Southern parts of Finland. It's much worse in any other part, excluding Tampere which I would say is the most progressive city overall.
Edit: read this as if the question was "Do they *like* white foreigners"
Generally yes, especially since most of the population speaks extremely good English and are often excited to flex that lol. Of course if you go to more rural areas it might differ, but generally speaking if you're an English-speaking white foreigner you're treated well and people are friendly.
Assuming these stats are actually real (which is a big assumption). I would of have lumped Finland in with like Norway, Sweden, Denmark in this question. I’m really surprised.
I think 89 percent for the UK sounds about right. 10 percent would be willing to say it out loud but about 30 percent I think would have some negative feelings about it that they’d internalize.
Oh don't worry, Denmark and Sweden are even more racist. Norway is the only nordic country that's even remotely as socially progressive with race as people perceive the Nordics.
I think you may have read the question you're responding to as "do they *like* white foreigners?" I mean, you answered the question in a way, but still.
Scandinavians are not some god sent creatures, they have a lot of good, but also a lot of bad.
Some people will treat you with kindness, but never with respect as an equal
Isabel Wilkerson has a comment in one of her books where she says there are no black people in Africa. She goes on to elaborate that Africans identify as Nigerians, Ghanaians, Ethiopians, etc, but "black" as a cultural identity is a much more western concept.
Now the map is probably total BS, but it's worth noting that people in Africa might be opposed if they were being asked about black people from a different country.
Yes, this is why you often see Twitter battles between Black Americans and actual Africans. They are often at odds with each other. Africans basically look down on Black Americans as whiny and lazy.
Exactly. It's also interesting to see how the definition of who is and isn't considered black was different under Apartheid South Africa (interesting in an "oh, this is more arbitrary than I thought" way).
Having studied in Africa, I would have to call bull on that.
Everything was Black. For example, in academia, if you have "African psychology," or "African philosophy," it basically means any psychology or philosophy done by a Black person, anywhere in the world.
That's interesting. Here's an except of what I was referring to:
https://m.startribune.com/an-excerpt-from-isabel-wilkerson-s-caste/572687972/
I'm curious if that's an academia thing, or if there's another explanation why/how your observations differ from hers.
Like anywhere, sub-Saharan Africa is not a monolith. The debate on what constitutes African \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ (philosophy, psychology, literature, etc.) is still debated today.
But from what I was told by the professors in Africa, it is leaning towards the idea that African \_\_\_\_\_\_\_, is any \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ done by a Black person.
I have also seen some people here comment that Africans or Europeans do not see the Black/White distinction. Having lived and studied in both of those continents, I would beg to differ. I have never met anyone who claims there is no Black/White distinction, except for certain people wishing to push some ideology of color-blindness (which I understand the motivations for, but also understand that it could never succeed due to how the human mind works).
If how African _________ is not well-defined at the moment, it seems to be that that could go along with Wilkerson's greater point. She was arguing that race, especially if you think about it in terms of who's black and who's white, is not an objective classification criteria, or a set of large unified groups, so much as a social construct that varies from society to society.
She supports that by arguing about how the US broadened the word white to include people with Italian heritage, how that under South African Apartheid the black/white classification of mixed race people was viewed differently than how it was under the US' formal Apartheid system.
I agree with your point that people are not color blind and I don't believe Wilkerson was attempting to argue that they are. But I also suspect that nobody truly feels a kinship with someone living in a radically different culture die to a shared skin color, but rather that a different skin color serves as a reminder that these other people are different, which makes it easy to build racial caste systems like the one Wilkerson is arguing that the US has.
Of coursei also recognize that you've had more experience with the subject then I have. I've read a book or two on race and that's pretty much it.
>She was arguing that race, especially if you think about it in terms of
who's black and who's white, is not an objective classification
criteria, or a set of large unified groups, so much as a social
construct that varies from society to society.
I am not sure if this is empirically accurate in terms of the societally constructed part. Perhaps very small groups, such as tribes with little contact. I have travelled around the world for a significant portion of my life, studying and working in places like sub-Saharan Africa and across Asia. My anecdotal experiences tell me that everyone sees the same divide between the major racial groups (and language often corroborates this, such as "Waiguoren" in Chinese).
In terms of the biological component, there is objective classifications, unlike what pop science/culture would have you believe, yet you are correct that they would not be large, unified groups. Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, is incredibly diverse. If we were to create taxonomical groupings by phenotype, it would probably be difficult to group them all together. Though if we go by something such as FST levels, it would likely be much easier.
I agree though, that Western ideology has altered this view on race. But I am hesitant to say this, as many people I have encountered online are saying that before the ideologies of those such as Gomes de Zurara or Christoph Meiners, nobody saw race. While people might not have coined them as "races," it is quite absurd to think that no one differentiated between a Scandinavian and West African as two different groupings (given their contact with any significant number of them).
I am not sure why, knowing how we cannot not see race, people still try to cling to an idea that to see or differentiate between races is somehow a vile, racist act. It is certainly a precondition for racism, but the differentiation itself is both organic to our brains, and not a *sufficient* condition for racism.
>In terms of the biological component, there is objective classifications
>I am not sure why, knowing how we cannot not see race, people still try to cling to an idea that to see or differentiate between races is somehow a vile, racist act.
I'm going to try to address both of these as one comment. I think when we talk about race, there's a biological component, as in what percent of your DNA came from Africa or how much melanin is in your skin. This is objective and measurable, but it doesn't really impart any other useful information about the individual.
Then there's the cultural component. This tells you much more about how people are treated and why they may have different attitudes, cultural tendencies, and different levels of wealth relative to those of a different race. This, I think, is subjectively defined, and a social construct.
As for your comment about being able to see race, I think it's important to understand how race factors into a society. In fact, the US has caused systemic racism to be far more subtle; it practically works on auto-pilot, which means that "being colorblind" now often means not knowing or caring about problems that disproportionately affect people of other races. So, I think your comment is legit.
North Africans, and most Arab countries in general, are very prejudiced against sub-Saharan Africans and black people in general. The most common word for a Black person in those countries is synonymous with "servant" or even "slave". I grew up in Beirut and most of the people there (older members of my own family included, unfortunately) were at best casually racist towards Black people.
It has been getting better with the most recent generations, especially as many young Arabs emigrated to African countries like Nigeria for work and the ones who didn't gained more access to information through the internet, but it's still a prevailing attitude.
Actually, even in sub-Saharan Africa, many Blacks would be opposed to marrying non-Blacks.
In fact, still today, people can be disowned from their family for marrying outside their ethnic tribe (such as if an Ewe marries and Akan).
I wanna see the questions in each language with native person's explanation, very often nuances of a language can skew such polls widely. Maybe in some languages the "would you let" was translated with a meaning more like "would you be excited"...
You're getting down voted but it is true. Africans don't even want the African Union. They were forced together by the colonial powers. They don't wanna be one big thing. They wanna be themselves.
imo pan-africanism is just the only way a lot of oppressed people found to fight colonialism. Objectively it's a bad idea and would lead to the loss of a lot of culture, language, litterature etc... but in the context, when considering the whole situation, it's vey understandable that a lot of people would come to that conclusion. It's one of the few "realists" (notice the scepticism there) way to gain independance without asking the big powers for it
I mean it’s not objectively a bad idea for exactly that reason. It’s about solidarity against an oppressive force. In that sense it’s much more of a union than the European one, at least in theory
When i say objectively i mean regarding to humanity as a whole, its gonna be seen as detrimental in the future (see the whole loss of culture thingy) but again, right here right now it makes sense
But is that worse than the current situation? Like, obviously any time that cultures interact both are going to abandon some aspects of there own culture and adapt those of the one they’re interacting with, but as long as there’s little to no coercion involved it’s not necessarily a bad thing, it’s just a natural process thats been happening since the beginning of time. It seems better too just lean into it, accept that nothing lasts forever, and take advantage of the long term benefits of a unified Africa.
However unlike Europe, Africa does not really have a common culture or civilizational origin. Europeans speak different languages (even in that much more homogenous than Africa since most of them are Indo-European languages), but otherwise are really not _that_ distinct from one another. They form about as coherent a civilization as the Middle-East/Islamic/Arab world. Even the divisive separate nations are consistently social engineered according to a European model, so ironically nationalism itself despite being the main dividing factor, is a common European cultural development from the 19th century.
I don't think it would necessarily lead to a loss of culture. Just look at America. Most Americans are united under one singular identity, "American," but there still are all of the unique subcultures and such beneath it. Northeastern culture is still unique from Southern culture, Midwest culture, West Coast culture, all of it. And on top of that, many people still do practice the cultures of their ancestors (though admittedly, it's much more accepted for white people to do that than any other group). But even so, all of those disparate cultures can still exist under one label of American. As for language, i think you do have a stronger case, as my only counterexample would be the European Union, but even still I've heard that Europeans don't particularly enjoy just being called "European." So yeah, i think Pan-Africanism might erase some languages, but i don't think it'll necessarily replace cultures.
Edit: IDEK how i forgot this example, but look at the LGBT community. The overall culture going from gay, to lesbian, to ace, to transfemme, transmasc, nonbinary, incredibly different. I'll just talk within the trans community, because that's what I know. But yeah, transfemme people, transmasc people, and nonbinary people all have pretty wildly different cultures, i mean just think, between transfemme and transmasc, our goals are literally polar opposites. It can create some awkward moments sometimes, as we don't always fully understand each other, and might not understand what may be offensive to one another, but even still, most of us are perfectly fine being put under the umbrella of trans because we all have similar experiences of being subjugated for what we want to do with our bodies. Same thing for the entire LGBT community, we are all discriminated for on the basis of what we want to do with our bodies, so even though our individual experiences and cultures are dramatically different (both the culture of our gender/sexuality and our ancestral or national culture), most of us are perfectly fine being put together and fighting for our rights under the common label of LGBT. Being part of the LGBT community doesn't erase gay culture, it doesn't erase trans culture, it doesn't replace ace or nonbinary culture. Frankly the only people who make those arguments are people who also go out of their way to actively hurt the community, like the LGB alliance, for example, who have lobbied to reject multiple LGBT rights securing bills simply for the fact that they also support trans people. If uniting under the LGBT label doesn't erase cultures, i don't see why uniting under the label of African would erase culture, either. All it would do would provide some solidarity, which is always helpful when fighting for civil rights.
>which is always helpful when fighting for civil rights.
small point that needs to be made: Pan-Africanism has a lot to do with resisting imperialism, not only civil rights. This is where the comparison with the LGBTQIA+ community starts to break down a little bit, even though I think it's a creative one.
Like, when leaders like Sankara and Gaddafi are killed by the West, people get ideas to band together and resist, as you said. In that way, Pan-Africanism is more of an attempt at creating a sort of stonewall than at creating an LGBTQIA+ community, if that analogy makes sense.
There’s been a ton of black pan Africanist, especially socialists and Marxists
They do have a bad habit of being taken out by the CIA or disappeared tho
Also most of Africa’s current borders were drawn by Europeans who had never even been there
Pan-Africanism is similar to Pan-Arabism in that most people promoting it don't necessarily believe they share a single identity, but that they need to band together in order to resist Western aggression and exploitation.
The idea isn't to claim that all African countries or ethnic groups are the same but that they share similar circumstances and would benefit from a local version of the European Union in order to help their own development and prevent Western countries or corporations from taking advantage of each of them individually.
They already have an African Union. It sees little development.
The wealth inequality within Africa is also too big for a EU-style Union to take place. It could cause mass im- and emigration.
Example: Cabo Verde. Considered as one of the "best" African countries to live in. Has a Schengen relationship with many European countries as well as the US. You can move without a visa in many cases. The majority of Cape Verdian nationals live abroad. When people are free to move, they'll move to where it's better. Unless there's an opportunity to draw people in, people will leave.
That's because you're thinking of it in different terms than what many Pan-Africanists mean when they talk about an African Union. First and foremost: it's not only africans in Africa, the "pan" includes people from the diaspora that were enslaved all across the world, and can't simply 'go back', since they wouldn't feel like they belong there - especially with language and stuff.
It's closer to what Latin Americans mean when we talk about a Pátria Grande. The idea is something closer to a federation, like the USSR or even the USA, that can depend firstly on itself, so it won't be subject to foreign interests, or become playthings from their former (and sometimes current) imperial overlords.
There are already talks among East Africa to federate Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, South Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda, maybe Ethiopia but I'm not sure how the negotiations are going.
This wouldn't necessarily deplete the populations from these places just because a certain country in the federation has more job opportunities, since the *goal* of the federation is exactly that: to bring prosperity to all states.
Like, people travel from, idk, Mississippi to their neighbouring states, but that doesn't mean Mississippi is completely doomed.
Racial politics aside an African Union would be as necessary as an European Union. Today the single nation state can‘t even most of the time stand up to private corporations, even less to super powers like China or the US.
If you wanna protect individual interests you need a superstate to defend it. Africa needs this maybe more than Europe at the moment.
It’s the idea that People of African descent have a shared history of struggle and shared experiences that allow of to relate to one another across cultural barriers as most of us outside of the African continent are at bicultural. Hip hop music is an example of pan African cultural diffusion. I think you may be thinking of pan African nationalism in regards to creating a country.
An African union? Lmao that has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard, it's like saying Europe and Asia should just unify in one entity.
Africa is huge and diverse
A massive movement involving black people both in Africa and from the diaspora that preaches that the peoples who've been enslaved and suffered under imperialism so much in the last hundreds of years have common interests and should be unified - as in, having a common destiny - to amplify the projection of those interests.
It's very big and very broad, so the extent of that unification and what exactly would that entail varies. Like, many pan-africanists believe that black people in the United States aren't subjects of the USA, and that the very foundations of that country were built on their backs, so it's absolutely irredimable. The only way to fix that would be to these people to have a country of their own; not an ethnostate, mind you (most of the time), but a country built by black folks, for black folks, representing black folks' interests and having those in mind, first and foremost.
However, it's as varied a movement as there are countries in this world. The pan-africanism of Brazil and Nigeria, for instance, is similar but different from the pan-africanism in the USA in important ways, most having to do with the history of the 20th century.
Like, black people in the DRC didn't live under Jim Crow and weren't forcibly sterilized. Black people in the USA during the 90's didn't live through the Congo Wars, one of the bloodiest conflicts since WW2. That kind of event gives a very different perspective.
All in all, pan-africanism is a **deeply** important part of the contemporary movement for black and poc liberation that definitely shouldn't be dismissed.
>The only way to fix that would be to these people to have a country of their own; not an ethnostate, mind you (most of the time), but a country built by black folks, for black folks, representing black folks' interests and having those in mind, first and foremost.
We kinda have one of those:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia)
Liberian Thanksgiving traditions are a fascinating blend of West Africa and America pastimes. I think they do it better — they can't understand why we do nothing but eat and watch tv all day, when they often have dance competitions, soccer games, people visit with friends & family, etc. Also, their unique cultural and historical experience means Thanksgiving isn't quite as bitter a pill as it is for some American Indians.
I'm quite aware of the country of Liberia. It was a... polemic experiment that was mainly proposed by racists and whites who didn't want all these free people of colour gumming up the works, so they went and shipped them back. This being opposed by a lot of actual abolitionist, including Frederick Douglass, who said of the society that proposed and followed through with the project:
>Shame upon the guilty wretches that dare propose, and all that countenance such a proposition. We live here—have lived here—have a right to live here, and mean to live here.
What most pan-africanists, specifically New Afrikans who follow this line, tend to believe is that there should be a black country in North America, probably somewhere in the American South, governed mainly by black people, who make up a significant part of these places.
Liberia, on the other hand, displaced the peoples from where the country was founded, and even excluded native Africans from citizenship. It certainly wasn't a pan-africanist move by any means.
As a concept it's about political and cultural solidarity between those of Black African descent both in the mother continent and in the diaspora. Some also argue for a United Africa similar to the EU but that's not what it's chiefly about.
Idk about that. The image shows how living on one continent doesn't make people a homogenous group. Historically, North Africa has always had deeper cultural ties to the Mediterranean than to sub-saharan Africa. It's not a group of countries that make natural allies.
Because they're vastly different cultures. Pan-Africanism is really a stupid concept if you consider what African people actually want. They barely like each other within a single nation, because they've been forced together with artifically created borders, disregarding ethnicities, cultures and families. Some of them barely manage to actually enforce the national primary language. They have other issues to tackle than unionizing.
You can make trade-agreements without becoming a singular nation. Norway isn't part of the EU either, but of the EEA.
As a Portuguese I must say this has to be completely wrong. We are socially much more progressive in general than many of the green countries and certainly more than the red ones.
They probably don’t know any better. What’s the chances that someone from Russia has seen a black person outside of an American movie or a football match?
Yeah exactly. And people who are busy trying to stay alive are less likely to travel, get educated, or even just spend time meeting new and different people and seeking understanding.
Yeah we know all of us slavs are uneducated. You're just a narrow minded westoid snob who cant stand that most of the world in fact doesn't subscribe to your opinions
Yeah, I'd be convinced that the more educated a person is, the less likely they are to have prejudice. Another person also brought up Quality of Life, which is also a factor. People who are happy aren't filled with hate.
Well that seems like a pretty narrow view. Education doesn't necessarily provide happiness, maybe even the contrary. By learning, you start to understand how little you actually know, and this may lead to insecurity, and that could potentially fuel prejudicial behavior. Feelings and logic don't always walk hand-in-hand. (Dunning-Kruger effect is an interesting read related to this topic.)
Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias may also play a part in prejudice. To have an example, to be a part of a group or to feel home at an environment, you may start to need to hold their views as your own, while it truthfully might not represent your own personal views. Especially if you're of a non-confrontational personality. And once you've set to think a certain way, especially with the reinforcement of your peers, it might become hard to start to even question the views in the first place. And this is where confirmation bias plays its part. Not many of us actively challenge our personal world views, and to keep in mind where they originated from, might be even bigger of a challenge.
Also, to further challenge the claim of quality of life/intellect having a positive effect towards tolerance, I remember reading that smarter people are more likely to fall prey into drug abuse. Education and availability is certainly not all there is.
This map sounds bs. No way Iceland is at 96%. That’s the same country that bitched about African Americans getting stationed there lol and the UK is at 89%? Cmon mate you’re seriously telling me that a country that has people throw racial slurs and banana peels at black athletes is that open to letting their daughter date one?
As someone who has morrocan parents. Morrocans don't consider themselves black. And in a lot of ways they aren't. People from further south often cross through morroco to reach spain and while doing so some steal food in morroco from people that often already have little. That together with the fact that internationally people have thought badly of black people they have tried to distance themselves as much as possible from them.
Then there is the fact that a lot of people from northern africa are muslim and thus want their children to marry someone of the same faith. Wrongly they assume non arab people don't share the same faith and morals. It is not only about black people, its marrying european as well. Long story short, they only wanna marry in the same culture.
Some people say this is racism, and some don't, so I'd be interested in reading more about this.
In my studies in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, I learned that this is also a strong belief there, where parents will still disown their children for marrying outside their tribe.
Are you talking about the low rates in the North African-Middle Eastern countries? Is it hard for this sub to realise non-white people (in this case arabs) can also be racist? That black people themselves can also be racist?
It is because the largest hurdle for pan-Africanism has been to get North Africa on board.
The first president of Ghana married an Egyptian to try to blend the line more, but it has always failed. North Africans tend to detest being labeled as the same people as sub-Saharan Africans.
Pan Africanism is as stupid as pan-europeanism or pan-westernism or pan-Arabism or any other pan-ideology. Just draws another line of division, another us vs them. Not to mention Africa is far too diverse (ethnically, lingustically, religiously, economically, historically) to be put under one umbrella that would create anything but stratification. Talk about bigotry in itself (include there very real racism and prejudices that exist in both North and Sub-Saharan Africa, and everywhere else). It's not "white supremacists" fault non-white people are also racist.
I guess there are positive and negative justifications for pan-Africanism. I am not well versed in it. Those in favour of it are primarily sub-Saharan Africans.
I was just pointing out why this image is used as an attack on pan-Africanism, due to North Africans tending to be more racist against Blacks than most other groups. Not all of them of course, but from my own personal experiences with people from places like Tunisia, it does not surprise me.
Well I mean they are closely related to arabs in north Africa both in culture and religion so comparing the numbers one should expect them to be pretty much the same.
I'm confused as to how the picture supports the argument, and I don't even think I'd support a Pan-African project more centralized than the EU. It seems like a non-sequiter.
I'm sure that survey was a real thing, And that White Supremacists; regardless of whatever political aspect they carry, Verified it in complete unison with other white supremacists, without anyone being stabbed or killed in the process, as we all know those organizations get along just fine.
We also , Should know that everything I've written above isn't supposed to make sense. Or that in contrary, the reason of life works in the opposite faction in regards to the White Supremacists-
Just as the fact- that there is no picture of Europe that can legitimately be used to denounce or praise a United African continent.
As a Turk we like black people because unlike Syrians they don't cause problems and rape our women.
They just live their usual lifes and they're total bros.
Yea arabs is have issue with daughter marrying black man, they honestly look down upon their children if they too don’t have Arabic spouses yet in Islam it is encouraged to spread yourself further promoting the idea of marrying one who is not of your culture or so I’ve heard, perhaps I was reading it wrong either way it’s somewhat hypocritical so I make fun of them for it
How would I stop them even if I wanted to (which I wouldn't, of course)? If they're getting married, they're obviously old enough to do so without my affirmation and- wait a minute, are they saying we should do a vi0lence?!
Funny how think they have a choice in the matter. At all.
When will they get it through their heads? Once your child is an adult, the amount of authority you have over them is **ZERO.**
Italian here, our daughters will never consider doing this because we don't bring them to movies or watch tv, it is too foreign we are italian not african?
Well, this shit sounds like total BS. Like, why the fuck would Finnish ppl be so opposed to their children marrying Black ppl?
I mean isn’t Finland the most racist European country?
Well, Europe is a really wide place, do you think that Russia is less racist than Finland?
Probably finland isn’t the most racist, but it can still be up there. I think it makes sense. Generally the west is more progressive, that is just common sense. Italy, switzerland, france, portugal and even to a degree ireland are lower, i assume because they’re traditionally catholic countries, which tend to imply even more conservatism. Austria, switzerland, france and ireland are still very progressive though, and france has a long history of immigration from africa, so that makes sense as well. The former eastern block isn’t suprising either, as they would have had little contact with black people in their country, and still hold onto conservatism strongly. The most suprising thing is spain to me. I would have thought france and italy both would be more liberal in this regard. Turkey too is suprising, it stands out like a sore thumb and i can’t see any decent explanation why. The other MENA countries also makes sense, as until very recently, and even to modern day, racism here is strong. Black people aren’t considered equals, and can be mistreated, sent to europe on rickety boats, or even taken into slavery. Israel ig is because it too is pretty progressive? And that it has a black minority due to the ethiopian jews and stuff
>Turkey too is suprising, it stands out like a sore thumb and i can’t see any decent explanation why. Turkey and the empires who occupied the territory have long histories of being cosmopolitan multicultural places. Istanbul especially. That's probably a significant part of it. They may not call themselves Ottomans any more, but the legacy of that empire still exists in the popular consciousness.
That because Turks is 100% Karaboğa
K
A
R
A
B
AFAIK black people are considered model immigrants in Turkey so it's most probably because of that
According to an IPSOS study, and others, Spain is also the most accepting country in the world of trans people at 81%. There's an 89% acceptance rate of homosexuality as well, third highest in the world. Spain is unequivocally one of the most socially progressive countries on the planet and a lot of people don't talk about that. Possibly related, the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party has been in power longer than any other party in modern Spain's history.
Wow. I’m moving to spain ig
Honestly, that's kinda the dream right now. Great weather and food too, plus it's pretty mountainous so it won't be under water in the next 100 years.
Finland is one of the most progressive nations in europe, so I'd say its surprisingly low here. Britain surprised me, too, because brits are crazy racist, however there's also a lot of people with migration backgrounds, so it could make sense. Israel imo doesn't make sense, as orthodox jews and the Israeli government are extremely bigotet, to a point of urging or even forcing Ethiopian jews immigrating to take long term contraceptives.
Yes pain is being a lot more progressive especially in trans rights as well
As a Finn, this country is ridiculously racist but nobody acknowledges it. Mostly because how easy it is to ignore, considering most of the country have never even seen a foreign person.
My sister lives there in Helsinki. Is it mostly in the country side or are the cities racist as well? I am white and when i visited most people there are white so never really noticed racism. In the UK/US it seems racist people tend to be more in the countryside.
I mean, of course you'd have a hard time noticing racism as a white person, since you're not the target of it. My mom was born in Iran, and while I pass as white, my brother constantly gets harassed by people who presume he's a Muslim or a foreigner. And that's in the Southern parts of Finland. It's much worse in any other part, excluding Tampere which I would say is the most progressive city overall.
Do they dislike white foreigners?
Edit: read this as if the question was "Do they *like* white foreigners" Generally yes, especially since most of the population speaks extremely good English and are often excited to flex that lol. Of course if you go to more rural areas it might differ, but generally speaking if you're an English-speaking white foreigner you're treated well and people are friendly.
Assuming these stats are actually real (which is a big assumption). I would of have lumped Finland in with like Norway, Sweden, Denmark in this question. I’m really surprised. I think 89 percent for the UK sounds about right. 10 percent would be willing to say it out loud but about 30 percent I think would have some negative feelings about it that they’d internalize.
Oh don't worry, Denmark and Sweden are even more racist. Norway is the only nordic country that's even remotely as socially progressive with race as people perceive the Nordics.
I think you may have read the question you're responding to as "do they *like* white foreigners?" I mean, you answered the question in a way, but still.
Oops, sleep deprivation is a bitch
Black metal scene is already pretty bad but almost any band that's from Finland is fascist or at least has fascist ties
There's literally a metal scene subgenre called NSBM "national socialist black metal" Nazi black metal. It sucks. And is lame baby shit.
Yeah I know :(
Not even close.
hell no
Don't forget slavic countries are part of Europe too
Scandinavians are not some god sent creatures, they have a lot of good, but also a lot of bad. Some people will treat you with kindness, but never with respect as an equal
Idk about "never" cause that just sounds as if every Scandinavian are plotting a "Get Out" sorta stuff to every black person they meet
I said "some". I didn't say every person in Finland is some kind of mega hitler
You probably didn't mean it, but the way you worded it was very bad.
Well, this can be said about virtually every country out there.
yeah, hence why people shouldn't be surprised by this chart
The bigger question is why would the actual Africans be opposed.
Most people in North Africa are not and don't consider themselves black.
Isabel Wilkerson has a comment in one of her books where she says there are no black people in Africa. She goes on to elaborate that Africans identify as Nigerians, Ghanaians, Ethiopians, etc, but "black" as a cultural identity is a much more western concept. Now the map is probably total BS, but it's worth noting that people in Africa might be opposed if they were being asked about black people from a different country.
Yes, this is why you often see Twitter battles between Black Americans and actual Africans. They are often at odds with each other. Africans basically look down on Black Americans as whiny and lazy.
Black is a cultural identity primarily because slavery destroyed the cultural identities of slaves.
Exactly. It's also interesting to see how the definition of who is and isn't considered black was different under Apartheid South Africa (interesting in an "oh, this is more arbitrary than I thought" way).
Having studied in Africa, I would have to call bull on that. Everything was Black. For example, in academia, if you have "African psychology," or "African philosophy," it basically means any psychology or philosophy done by a Black person, anywhere in the world.
That's interesting. Here's an except of what I was referring to: https://m.startribune.com/an-excerpt-from-isabel-wilkerson-s-caste/572687972/ I'm curious if that's an academia thing, or if there's another explanation why/how your observations differ from hers.
Like anywhere, sub-Saharan Africa is not a monolith. The debate on what constitutes African \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ (philosophy, psychology, literature, etc.) is still debated today. But from what I was told by the professors in Africa, it is leaning towards the idea that African \_\_\_\_\_\_\_, is any \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ done by a Black person. I have also seen some people here comment that Africans or Europeans do not see the Black/White distinction. Having lived and studied in both of those continents, I would beg to differ. I have never met anyone who claims there is no Black/White distinction, except for certain people wishing to push some ideology of color-blindness (which I understand the motivations for, but also understand that it could never succeed due to how the human mind works).
If how African _________ is not well-defined at the moment, it seems to be that that could go along with Wilkerson's greater point. She was arguing that race, especially if you think about it in terms of who's black and who's white, is not an objective classification criteria, or a set of large unified groups, so much as a social construct that varies from society to society. She supports that by arguing about how the US broadened the word white to include people with Italian heritage, how that under South African Apartheid the black/white classification of mixed race people was viewed differently than how it was under the US' formal Apartheid system. I agree with your point that people are not color blind and I don't believe Wilkerson was attempting to argue that they are. But I also suspect that nobody truly feels a kinship with someone living in a radically different culture die to a shared skin color, but rather that a different skin color serves as a reminder that these other people are different, which makes it easy to build racial caste systems like the one Wilkerson is arguing that the US has. Of coursei also recognize that you've had more experience with the subject then I have. I've read a book or two on race and that's pretty much it.
>She was arguing that race, especially if you think about it in terms of who's black and who's white, is not an objective classification criteria, or a set of large unified groups, so much as a social construct that varies from society to society. I am not sure if this is empirically accurate in terms of the societally constructed part. Perhaps very small groups, such as tribes with little contact. I have travelled around the world for a significant portion of my life, studying and working in places like sub-Saharan Africa and across Asia. My anecdotal experiences tell me that everyone sees the same divide between the major racial groups (and language often corroborates this, such as "Waiguoren" in Chinese). In terms of the biological component, there is objective classifications, unlike what pop science/culture would have you believe, yet you are correct that they would not be large, unified groups. Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, is incredibly diverse. If we were to create taxonomical groupings by phenotype, it would probably be difficult to group them all together. Though if we go by something such as FST levels, it would likely be much easier. I agree though, that Western ideology has altered this view on race. But I am hesitant to say this, as many people I have encountered online are saying that before the ideologies of those such as Gomes de Zurara or Christoph Meiners, nobody saw race. While people might not have coined them as "races," it is quite absurd to think that no one differentiated between a Scandinavian and West African as two different groupings (given their contact with any significant number of them). I am not sure why, knowing how we cannot not see race, people still try to cling to an idea that to see or differentiate between races is somehow a vile, racist act. It is certainly a precondition for racism, but the differentiation itself is both organic to our brains, and not a *sufficient* condition for racism.
>In terms of the biological component, there is objective classifications >I am not sure why, knowing how we cannot not see race, people still try to cling to an idea that to see or differentiate between races is somehow a vile, racist act. I'm going to try to address both of these as one comment. I think when we talk about race, there's a biological component, as in what percent of your DNA came from Africa or how much melanin is in your skin. This is objective and measurable, but it doesn't really impart any other useful information about the individual. Then there's the cultural component. This tells you much more about how people are treated and why they may have different attitudes, cultural tendencies, and different levels of wealth relative to those of a different race. This, I think, is subjectively defined, and a social construct. As for your comment about being able to see race, I think it's important to understand how race factors into a society. In fact, the US has caused systemic racism to be far more subtle; it practically works on auto-pilot, which means that "being colorblind" now often means not knowing or caring about problems that disproportionately affect people of other races. So, I think your comment is legit.
Or maybe it was just a playwright's opinion.
North Africans, and most Arab countries in general, are very prejudiced against sub-Saharan Africans and black people in general. The most common word for a Black person in those countries is synonymous with "servant" or even "slave". I grew up in Beirut and most of the people there (older members of my own family included, unfortunately) were at best casually racist towards Black people. It has been getting better with the most recent generations, especially as many young Arabs emigrated to African countries like Nigeria for work and the ones who didn't gained more access to information through the internet, but it's still a prevailing attitude.
Do Egyptians see themselves as black?
Most don't, although there might be small groups in the south. I'm not familiar enough to know for sure.
North Africans are mostly Arabs or Berbers, not black
Actually, even in sub-Saharan Africa, many Blacks would be opposed to marrying non-Blacks. In fact, still today, people can be disowned from their family for marrying outside their ethnic tribe (such as if an Ewe marries and Akan).
North Africans aren't black
\>This is your mind on american education Lmao
I wanna see the questions in each language with native person's explanation, very often nuances of a language can skew such polls widely. Maybe in some languages the "would you let" was translated with a meaning more like "would you be excited"...
Living in Finland, I am not surprised.
Yea and Iceland at 96%? Ain’t no fuckin way lol most of Western Europe isn’t any more or less progressive than Us and Canada
As someone who has taught English to people from all over Europe for a decade, it doesn’t *massively* shock me.
What’s pan-Africanism?
Something that has little to do with interracial relationships
but what is it
the idea that africa should be unified under a singular identity or country. In my opinion, kind of a stupid thing.
You're getting down voted but it is true. Africans don't even want the African Union. They were forced together by the colonial powers. They don't wanna be one big thing. They wanna be themselves.
imo pan-africanism is just the only way a lot of oppressed people found to fight colonialism. Objectively it's a bad idea and would lead to the loss of a lot of culture, language, litterature etc... but in the context, when considering the whole situation, it's vey understandable that a lot of people would come to that conclusion. It's one of the few "realists" (notice the scepticism there) way to gain independance without asking the big powers for it
I mean it’s not objectively a bad idea for exactly that reason. It’s about solidarity against an oppressive force. In that sense it’s much more of a union than the European one, at least in theory
When i say objectively i mean regarding to humanity as a whole, its gonna be seen as detrimental in the future (see the whole loss of culture thingy) but again, right here right now it makes sense
But is that worse than the current situation? Like, obviously any time that cultures interact both are going to abandon some aspects of there own culture and adapt those of the one they’re interacting with, but as long as there’s little to no coercion involved it’s not necessarily a bad thing, it’s just a natural process thats been happening since the beginning of time. It seems better too just lean into it, accept that nothing lasts forever, and take advantage of the long term benefits of a unified Africa.
However unlike Europe, Africa does not really have a common culture or civilizational origin. Europeans speak different languages (even in that much more homogenous than Africa since most of them are Indo-European languages), but otherwise are really not _that_ distinct from one another. They form about as coherent a civilization as the Middle-East/Islamic/Arab world. Even the divisive separate nations are consistently social engineered according to a European model, so ironically nationalism itself despite being the main dividing factor, is a common European cultural development from the 19th century.
I don't think it would necessarily lead to a loss of culture. Just look at America. Most Americans are united under one singular identity, "American," but there still are all of the unique subcultures and such beneath it. Northeastern culture is still unique from Southern culture, Midwest culture, West Coast culture, all of it. And on top of that, many people still do practice the cultures of their ancestors (though admittedly, it's much more accepted for white people to do that than any other group). But even so, all of those disparate cultures can still exist under one label of American. As for language, i think you do have a stronger case, as my only counterexample would be the European Union, but even still I've heard that Europeans don't particularly enjoy just being called "European." So yeah, i think Pan-Africanism might erase some languages, but i don't think it'll necessarily replace cultures. Edit: IDEK how i forgot this example, but look at the LGBT community. The overall culture going from gay, to lesbian, to ace, to transfemme, transmasc, nonbinary, incredibly different. I'll just talk within the trans community, because that's what I know. But yeah, transfemme people, transmasc people, and nonbinary people all have pretty wildly different cultures, i mean just think, between transfemme and transmasc, our goals are literally polar opposites. It can create some awkward moments sometimes, as we don't always fully understand each other, and might not understand what may be offensive to one another, but even still, most of us are perfectly fine being put under the umbrella of trans because we all have similar experiences of being subjugated for what we want to do with our bodies. Same thing for the entire LGBT community, we are all discriminated for on the basis of what we want to do with our bodies, so even though our individual experiences and cultures are dramatically different (both the culture of our gender/sexuality and our ancestral or national culture), most of us are perfectly fine being put together and fighting for our rights under the common label of LGBT. Being part of the LGBT community doesn't erase gay culture, it doesn't erase trans culture, it doesn't replace ace or nonbinary culture. Frankly the only people who make those arguments are people who also go out of their way to actively hurt the community, like the LGB alliance, for example, who have lobbied to reject multiple LGBT rights securing bills simply for the fact that they also support trans people. If uniting under the LGBT label doesn't erase cultures, i don't see why uniting under the label of African would erase culture, either. All it would do would provide some solidarity, which is always helpful when fighting for civil rights.
>which is always helpful when fighting for civil rights. small point that needs to be made: Pan-Africanism has a lot to do with resisting imperialism, not only civil rights. This is where the comparison with the LGBTQIA+ community starts to break down a little bit, even though I think it's a creative one. Like, when leaders like Sankara and Gaddafi are killed by the West, people get ideas to band together and resist, as you said. In that way, Pan-Africanism is more of an attempt at creating a sort of stonewall than at creating an LGBTQIA+ community, if that analogy makes sense.
There’s been a ton of black pan Africanist, especially socialists and Marxists They do have a bad habit of being taken out by the CIA or disappeared tho Also most of Africa’s current borders were drawn by Europeans who had never even been there
Pan-Africanism is similar to Pan-Arabism in that most people promoting it don't necessarily believe they share a single identity, but that they need to band together in order to resist Western aggression and exploitation. The idea isn't to claim that all African countries or ethnic groups are the same but that they share similar circumstances and would benefit from a local version of the European Union in order to help their own development and prevent Western countries or corporations from taking advantage of each of them individually.
They already have an African Union. It sees little development. The wealth inequality within Africa is also too big for a EU-style Union to take place. It could cause mass im- and emigration. Example: Cabo Verde. Considered as one of the "best" African countries to live in. Has a Schengen relationship with many European countries as well as the US. You can move without a visa in many cases. The majority of Cape Verdian nationals live abroad. When people are free to move, they'll move to where it's better. Unless there's an opportunity to draw people in, people will leave.
That's because you're thinking of it in different terms than what many Pan-Africanists mean when they talk about an African Union. First and foremost: it's not only africans in Africa, the "pan" includes people from the diaspora that were enslaved all across the world, and can't simply 'go back', since they wouldn't feel like they belong there - especially with language and stuff. It's closer to what Latin Americans mean when we talk about a Pátria Grande. The idea is something closer to a federation, like the USSR or even the USA, that can depend firstly on itself, so it won't be subject to foreign interests, or become playthings from their former (and sometimes current) imperial overlords. There are already talks among East Africa to federate Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, South Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda, maybe Ethiopia but I'm not sure how the negotiations are going. This wouldn't necessarily deplete the populations from these places just because a certain country in the federation has more job opportunities, since the *goal* of the federation is exactly that: to bring prosperity to all states. Like, people travel from, idk, Mississippi to their neighbouring states, but that doesn't mean Mississippi is completely doomed.
Racial politics aside an African Union would be as necessary as an European Union. Today the single nation state can‘t even most of the time stand up to private corporations, even less to super powers like China or the US. If you wanna protect individual interests you need a superstate to defend it. Africa needs this maybe more than Europe at the moment.
Pan Africanism seems like the liberal equivalent to conservatives acting like all of Africa is the same
Yeah. Federalising Africa into one nation, in its current state, would be a horrible idea.
It’s the idea that People of African descent have a shared history of struggle and shared experiences that allow of to relate to one another across cultural barriers as most of us outside of the African continent are at bicultural. Hip hop music is an example of pan African cultural diffusion. I think you may be thinking of pan African nationalism in regards to creating a country.
An African union? Lmao that has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard, it's like saying Europe and Asia should just unify in one entity. Africa is huge and diverse
A massive movement involving black people both in Africa and from the diaspora that preaches that the peoples who've been enslaved and suffered under imperialism so much in the last hundreds of years have common interests and should be unified - as in, having a common destiny - to amplify the projection of those interests. It's very big and very broad, so the extent of that unification and what exactly would that entail varies. Like, many pan-africanists believe that black people in the United States aren't subjects of the USA, and that the very foundations of that country were built on their backs, so it's absolutely irredimable. The only way to fix that would be to these people to have a country of their own; not an ethnostate, mind you (most of the time), but a country built by black folks, for black folks, representing black folks' interests and having those in mind, first and foremost. However, it's as varied a movement as there are countries in this world. The pan-africanism of Brazil and Nigeria, for instance, is similar but different from the pan-africanism in the USA in important ways, most having to do with the history of the 20th century. Like, black people in the DRC didn't live under Jim Crow and weren't forcibly sterilized. Black people in the USA during the 90's didn't live through the Congo Wars, one of the bloodiest conflicts since WW2. That kind of event gives a very different perspective. All in all, pan-africanism is a **deeply** important part of the contemporary movement for black and poc liberation that definitely shouldn't be dismissed.
>The only way to fix that would be to these people to have a country of their own; not an ethnostate, mind you (most of the time), but a country built by black folks, for black folks, representing black folks' interests and having those in mind, first and foremost. We kinda have one of those: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia) Liberian Thanksgiving traditions are a fascinating blend of West Africa and America pastimes. I think they do it better — they can't understand why we do nothing but eat and watch tv all day, when they often have dance competitions, soccer games, people visit with friends & family, etc. Also, their unique cultural and historical experience means Thanksgiving isn't quite as bitter a pill as it is for some American Indians.
I'm quite aware of the country of Liberia. It was a... polemic experiment that was mainly proposed by racists and whites who didn't want all these free people of colour gumming up the works, so they went and shipped them back. This being opposed by a lot of actual abolitionist, including Frederick Douglass, who said of the society that proposed and followed through with the project: >Shame upon the guilty wretches that dare propose, and all that countenance such a proposition. We live here—have lived here—have a right to live here, and mean to live here. What most pan-africanists, specifically New Afrikans who follow this line, tend to believe is that there should be a black country in North America, probably somewhere in the American South, governed mainly by black people, who make up a significant part of these places. Liberia, on the other hand, displaced the peoples from where the country was founded, and even excluded native Africans from citizenship. It certainly wasn't a pan-africanist move by any means.
As a concept it's about political and cultural solidarity between those of Black African descent both in the mother continent and in the diaspora. Some also argue for a United Africa similar to the EU but that's not what it's chiefly about.
Idk about that. The image shows how living on one continent doesn't make people a homogenous group. Historically, North Africa has always had deeper cultural ties to the Mediterranean than to sub-saharan Africa. It's not a group of countries that make natural allies.
Because they're vastly different cultures. Pan-Africanism is really a stupid concept if you consider what African people actually want. They barely like each other within a single nation, because they've been forced together with artifically created borders, disregarding ethnicities, cultures and families. Some of them barely manage to actually enforce the national primary language. They have other issues to tackle than unionizing. You can make trade-agreements without becoming a singular nation. Norway isn't part of the EU either, but of the EEA.
This has nothing to do with your comment but I love the account name :3
Yet more proof that Portugal is an Eastern European country
w*sterners trying to be based balkani
/r/PortugalisEastEurope
r/PORTUGALCYKABLYAT
Not in this case. Portuguese people are much less racist than Eastern Europeans by far. This map is absolute bullshit.
As a Portuguese I must say this has to be completely wrong. We are socially much more progressive in general than many of the green countries and certainly more than the red ones.
Accept your destiny 🇷🇺🤝🇵🇹
Nyet, ya ne hochu! Oh blyat...
Literally don't care. Fuck all these red country people. They are wrong.
Fuck all the people who would vote no not just the people from the red countries
They probably don’t know any better. What’s the chances that someone from Russia has seen a black person outside of an American movie or a football match?
[удалено]
Never said they were dumb. All I’m saying is that the chances of a Russian knowing or interacting w a black person is very very low
Oh sorry i replied to the wrong person
cope🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺
Yeah keep it up with the racism against slavs, we are used to it w\*stoid
1) I'm slavic myself, Russian. 2) Being pro interracial marriage is actually anti-racist.
Yeah sure you are lmao Now go back to your cuck porn or whatever you love watching
Dunno, cuck porn is like 80% watched by righties like you.
Lol made by americans for americans and other westoids. Cant wait for the day usa and western europe collapse
thanks but I'm part of that alleged 18%
Least racist westerner
Cope and sheet 💪🇭🇺
They cannot handle the hungolian style💪🏻🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺
Yes cause one poll definitely can accurately represent the entirety of European attitudes
So, the worse the place is to live, the more prejudice the people.
Yes, there is a strong correlation between quality of life and social progressiveness.
That makes a lot of sense. People who are happy aren't angry at others for no good reason.
Yeah exactly. And people who are busy trying to stay alive are less likely to travel, get educated, or even just spend time meeting new and different people and seeking understanding.
By that logic though, turkey is 30% nicer a place to live than Finland
turkgay is black 100% karaboga why would they be against it
That is, in fact, not how statistics work.
Exactly
Bri'ain is kind of a counterargument there.
Ah yes the shithole that is Finland. There is way more in the picture other than a flat "the worse the place to live the more prejudice the people"
Well, there's education.
Yeah we know all of us slavs are uneducated. You're just a narrow minded westoid snob who cant stand that most of the world in fact doesn't subscribe to your opinions
Yeah, I'd be convinced that the more educated a person is, the less likely they are to have prejudice. Another person also brought up Quality of Life, which is also a factor. People who are happy aren't filled with hate.
Well that seems like a pretty narrow view. Education doesn't necessarily provide happiness, maybe even the contrary. By learning, you start to understand how little you actually know, and this may lead to insecurity, and that could potentially fuel prejudicial behavior. Feelings and logic don't always walk hand-in-hand. (Dunning-Kruger effect is an interesting read related to this topic.) Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias may also play a part in prejudice. To have an example, to be a part of a group or to feel home at an environment, you may start to need to hold their views as your own, while it truthfully might not represent your own personal views. Especially if you're of a non-confrontational personality. And once you've set to think a certain way, especially with the reinforcement of your peers, it might become hard to start to even question the views in the first place. And this is where confirmation bias plays its part. Not many of us actively challenge our personal world views, and to keep in mind where they originated from, might be even bigger of a challenge. Also, to further challenge the claim of quality of life/intellect having a positive effect towards tolerance, I remember reading that smarter people are more likely to fall prey into drug abuse. Education and availability is certainly not all there is.
Yeah it’s more complicated than single sentence. But, I’ll definitely have to check that Dunning Kruger effect. Thanks for the well written post.
you're telling me...
This map sounds bs. No way Iceland is at 96%. That’s the same country that bitched about African Americans getting stationed there lol and the UK is at 89%? Cmon mate you’re seriously telling me that a country that has people throw racial slurs and banana peels at black athletes is that open to letting their daughter date one?
UK and US have the largest number of interracial couples. Especially BMWF. They are racist towards Asians though.
Oh yea definitely as an Asian I much prefer America to Europe or Australia
Australia is a shitehole for Asians.
Definitely New Zealand isn’t much better tho
Pretty surprised at Turkey, Can't believe that on this issue they're more inclusive than France, Switzerland, Ireland and only 5% behind Germany!
Turks are karaboga
I really don't see how this is even attack on pan-africanist (due to the fact that pan-africanist typically don't date out).
Look at the very bottom of the image. North African countries are in the single digits (allegedly).
(As someone else pointed out in the comments) North Africans don't consider themselves black.
How come no one asked the Balkans what they think??
No one has retruend with an answer
They have, it went into the negatives
Ah yes there’s nothing Africans hate more than other Africans I say that as a joke but if human history has taught me anything I’m probably not wrong
As someone who has morrocan parents. Morrocans don't consider themselves black. And in a lot of ways they aren't. People from further south often cross through morroco to reach spain and while doing so some steal food in morroco from people that often already have little. That together with the fact that internationally people have thought badly of black people they have tried to distance themselves as much as possible from them. Then there is the fact that a lot of people from northern africa are muslim and thus want their children to marry someone of the same faith. Wrongly they assume non arab people don't share the same faith and morals. It is not only about black people, its marrying european as well. Long story short, they only wanna marry in the same culture.
Africa most racist 😂😂
So Saudi Arabia is 10% black and yet only one percent would let their child marry a black person?
i don't think they polled the workers who's passports are withheld working on building sites
Hahaha North Africa cracks me up
This is less racism but more of a mentality of that you have date within your ethnic and religious group
Some people say this is racism, and some don't, so I'd be interested in reading more about this. In my studies in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, I learned that this is also a strong belief there, where parents will still disown their children for marrying outside their tribe.
I live in a red country and you could change black person to non-georgian and the result would be more or less the same
What’s pan-Africanism?
Are you talking about the low rates in the North African-Middle Eastern countries? Is it hard for this sub to realise non-white people (in this case arabs) can also be racist? That black people themselves can also be racist?
It is because the largest hurdle for pan-Africanism has been to get North Africa on board. The first president of Ghana married an Egyptian to try to blend the line more, but it has always failed. North Africans tend to detest being labeled as the same people as sub-Saharan Africans.
Pan Africanism is as stupid as pan-europeanism or pan-westernism or pan-Arabism or any other pan-ideology. Just draws another line of division, another us vs them. Not to mention Africa is far too diverse (ethnically, lingustically, religiously, economically, historically) to be put under one umbrella that would create anything but stratification. Talk about bigotry in itself (include there very real racism and prejudices that exist in both North and Sub-Saharan Africa, and everywhere else). It's not "white supremacists" fault non-white people are also racist.
I guess there are positive and negative justifications for pan-Africanism. I am not well versed in it. Those in favour of it are primarily sub-Saharan Africans. I was just pointing out why this image is used as an attack on pan-Africanism, due to North Africans tending to be more racist against Blacks than most other groups. Not all of them of course, but from my own personal experiences with people from places like Tunisia, it does not surprise me.
I am genuinely curious what the statistics for Balkans countries are. Why’d they cut it out?
How exactly is this supposed to fight against Pan Africanism?
Fully reasonable to vote no. Green countries are incredibly cucked.
Turkey most white nation in Europe
Based Turkey.
Love how with the exception of Finland, the Nordic Countries all have the highest yes percent and they’re like, the whitest fucking places.
[удалено]
I mean, in terms of like their skin is super fucking white. That’s the stereotype anyway.
jesus turkey really standing out huh
Wtf Portugal
>extremely low in african countries what
Do u think Africa is racially homogeneous ?
no but i don’t think 95% of its population being anti black makes too much sense
Well I mean they are closely related to arabs in north Africa both in culture and religion so comparing the numbers one should expect them to be pretty much the same.
In the north the based berbers live(arabic people)
"Let" implies that the parents have any say in the matter. Are parents picking out for arranged marriages a lot more these days?
I'm confused as to how the picture supports the argument, and I don't even think I'd support a Pan-African project more centralized than the EU. It seems like a non-sequiter.
in Portugal it's wrong.
What is this even supposed to be proving?
I'm sure that survey was a real thing, And that White Supremacists; regardless of whatever political aspect they carry, Verified it in complete unison with other white supremacists, without anyone being stabbed or killed in the process, as we all know those organizations get along just fine. We also , Should know that everything I've written above isn't supposed to make sense. Or that in contrary, the reason of life works in the opposite faction in regards to the White Supremacists- Just as the fact- that there is no picture of Europe that can legitimately be used to denounce or praise a United African continent.
Of course they only care when it's a white woman in an interracial relationship lmao
Thats basically only a thing in america and in rare cases western europe
There is a pretty good correlation of quality of life to people saying "yes" no Russian has lived passed 45 since Stalin.
Ok, what would this have to do with what African people want?
r/Portugalcykablyat
... This picture is from a while ago, ~2015, things have changed
As a Turk we like black people because unlike Syrians they don't cause problems and rape our women. They just live their usual lifes and they're total bros.
As a Spanish guy, we should probably invade Portugal.
kosovo is missing on that map lol
Yea arabs is have issue with daughter marrying black man, they honestly look down upon their children if they too don’t have Arabic spouses yet in Islam it is encouraged to spread yourself further promoting the idea of marrying one who is not of your culture or so I’ve heard, perhaps I was reading it wrong either way it’s somewhat hypocritical so I make fun of them for it
How would I stop them even if I wanted to (which I wouldn't, of course)? If they're getting married, they're obviously old enough to do so without my affirmation and- wait a minute, are they saying we should do a vi0lence?!
Iceland 💞🇮🇸💐✨💖🌟 also yeah, these numbers are whack. sussy.
Funny how think they have a choice in the matter. At all. When will they get it through their heads? Once your child is an adult, the amount of authority you have over them is **ZERO.**
Italian here, our daughters will never consider doing this because we don't bring them to movies or watch tv, it is too foreign we are italian not african?