-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Can other countries criticize U.S. race relations when they have much less diversity? (READ OP!)
- Thread starter BossAttack
- Start date
I think only Western nations can be really judged by diversity. Non-white majority countries have a different context in terms of race and ethnicity, that is particular to the culture and history of the respective nations.
Well, it would be a logical fallacy to say that they couldn't.
Like many have already pointed out there seems to be a lack of knowledge about the differences between a lot of European countries and the US such as the actual age of the countries, meaningful historical context and what that tells you. Also, why would it matter if someone criticized your country regarding this topic? So that you could say: "Well, you're not better yourself?"
Like many have already pointed out there seems to be a lack of knowledge about the differences between a lot of European countries and the US such as the actual age of the countries, meaningful historical context and what that tells you. Also, why would it matter if someone criticized your country regarding this topic? So that you could say: "Well, you're not better yourself?"
I don't think it's so much "American Exceptionalism" as it is two factors: (1) The US is such a large country that the only thing you can reasonably compare it to is other extremely large countries like China and Russia. (2) The US (as it is now, post Native Americans) has only existed in the period of significant international travel. We don't have the eons of historic cultures that the rest of the world has.
The confluence of these two factors leads American culture to see itself based primarily on color, as very few people are actually native to America. To be sure, parts of America break themselves down into ethnicities, usually in dense cities, but by in large, Americans use the continent their ancestors originate from to identify themselves. This is because our country is both too young and too large to form the hyper-local bonds necessary to form the variety of cultures present within Europe. Our ability to travel long distances by train within four generations of our founding (and immediately by ship) meant that there was little incentive to classify people by ethnicity. Classification was done swiftly, and primarily by visual appearance. People were either white, "Mexican," "Negro," or "Chinese." To be sure, when some immigrants like the Irish or Germans first arrived, the white people already in America at the time did not accept them, but this only lasted for about 50 years or so at most for each "white" ethnicity.
For this reason, most people in America (especially minorities in America) see Europe- from Portugal to Russia, as one vast collection of white people. Yes, we know there are different ethnicities within that classification, but that doesn't matter to us because as soon as you step foot outside of Europe, all the other native people will simply see you as white. The same is true with a black man stepping out of Africa. As soon as a person from the "Far East" steps out of there, they will be seen as Asian. As soon as an Indian steps out of India, they will be seen as Indian. The Middle East is somewhat harder to parse, but they have pretty obvious features as well (generally, I'd say the features between Persian vs Arab people are pretty clear).
What matters in America, and I'd argue what is more important functionally on a global scale, is what other people generally consider you to be at at first meeting. Whether I'm in Europe, Asia, Africa, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or America, the first thing people are going to notice about me is the fact that I am black. That is true whether I'm going in for a job interview or to make a business deal in those areas. And that matters right now in Europe with its immigration issues, whether the authorities want to accept it or not. America uses "race" as a basis for its demographic measurements because it is the most objective metric possible (in spite of being a social construct) because it is a measure based on objective visual features that have been shown with real scientific data to alter one's perception of another person. That is why we use race, and that is why I suggest Europe use race as a metric. It can add that to it's other ethnic measures if it wants to (as we often do in America... you will note all the threads on evangelicals we have here), but race is an important factor.
Thank you for this post. I literally don't know enough to respond to every point of it. I think this is a great post, and very educational. However, there is one thing I'd like to respond to below.
I know that. Feel free to track those things. What I'm saying is that when you don't track race specifically, you miss alot of relevant information about the larger global social construct that is race. What I would say is that you're tracking sub groups, and missing the greater groups by which humans have tended to socially organize themselves.
OP
OP
In non-Western nations, race and ethnicity are viewed differently. Systematic dissemination is not necessarily only based on skin colour, religion, and place of origin, different factors. So I don't think there is a universal metric of diversity.
I'm interpreting the title more as a prompt than a literal question and having read the OP, it sounds like you want other countries to be more cognizant of their socio-cultural differences to the U.S. when discussing race? Sounds fair, it's something people should have in the back of their minds anyway.
There seems to be a huge disconnect between a prescriptivist and descriptivist approach to this stuff.
What I'm hearing is that for Europeans it's more common to use a prescriptivist approach, where "there's only one race, so even though people don't act equally to all backgrounds of people, we don't want people to think this way so we don't officially recognize people as being [insert race/color/etc/whatever]"
Whereas with Americans it's more descriptivist, where it's more "well obviously there's only one 'race' but it's fact that people are treated differently based on their skin color and perceived ethnic background, so we're going to measure it even if it's not the most scientifically accurate method"
They both have their flaws to them, I just think it's weird for Europeans to say "we don't care about color, we care about ethnicity" when you have football fans throwing bananas on the field on the regular when a black guy is playing.
What I'm hearing is that for Europeans it's more common to use a prescriptivist approach, where "there's only one race, so even though people don't act equally to all backgrounds of people, we don't want people to think this way so we don't officially recognize people as being [insert race/color/etc/whatever]"
Whereas with Americans it's more descriptivist, where it's more "well obviously there's only one 'race' but it's fact that people are treated differently based on their skin color and perceived ethnic background, so we're going to measure it even if it's not the most scientifically accurate method"
They both have their flaws to them, I just think it's weird for Europeans to say "we don't care about color, we care about ethnicity" when you have football fans throwing bananas on the field on the regular when a black guy is playing.
Wow. The cognitive dissonance is so strong I'm surprised you haven't created a portal to a parallel dimension.
Why is it weird? There's racist people who subscribe to that notion in Europe as well.
It's weird because Europeans obviously participate in racism based on color, it's not like it's more nuanced than the racism in America or anything...
I don't understand. In the traditional sense of "diversity," which is the confluence of people of different countries, cultures, and races primarily only applies to Western nations. What people consider are "homogenous" countries non-white countries (not all homogenous), actually have plenty of diversity within them, because when these countries were formed many different people/cultures/ethnicities were joined in a single nation. Look at the Middle-east now, and parts of Africa. How do you judge how diverse they are? Race and ethnicity is a social construction that is not universally interpreted. I think the OP was talking about diversity in terms of the West, and the things he cited were Western sources.
Edit: Tell me if I'm way off base.
Racism behavior is perpetuated and displayed mostly the same way with racial group present in both region. However, non-racist people don't employ the term race in most of continental Europe (don't know if its the same in the UK) because it has a negative and derogatory connotation there. The fact that discriminative behavior can also be found between seemingly "white group" makes it non extensive on top of that.
Like during Brexit when people where saying that polish people are taking their jobs or the behavior throughout Europe against Roma people.
That's where the nuance is coming from.
Is there a lot of ethnicity based racism(more accurately, xenophobia, but the same for all intents and purposes here) in the US? Because if not, then this "nuance" is there. We're sadly drowning in it. Loads of racism against Turkish/Romanian/Polish/Croatian/... people.
If you look at the past few page(s?), I tried to explain why I feel like using the American concept of race in an European context does not work, even though there is discrimination based on skin color.
You described the American approach as descriptivist, but that only really works in a system which started out holding these views in a prescriptivist way, in my opinion.
When you look at racism/xenophobia(which I believe are inseparately linked in Europe) in a European context, using the American system is overly simplistic. Like also stated before, a "race" section on a census would be borderline useless when compared to a section asking about ethnicity/immigration history.
If you feel I'm wrong, I would love to hear more about your views. I'd especially appreciate if you could try to use examples and comparisons to make it easy to grasp, because I feel like there is a lot of potential for productive discussion here.
Good post, (and thanks to Mass_Pincup above as well). I think this makes it clearer for me to understand as well.
I think the heart of the issue here is Americans feel like Europeans unfairly look down on them for their brand of racism as though the European form of discrimination is somehow more sophisticated, which is more what I was alluding to with the nuance comment. But I think from the American perspective the sort of "ethnic" racism that was imported from Europe has largely dissolved (we used to have plenty of "No Irish Allowed", anti-German, anti-Polish, anti-etc. things here but not really in my lifetime). You mention the simplicity of the American approach, and I get what you're saying -- but I wonder how it manifests itself in Europe. If somebody is anti-Polish, do they treat any slavic-appearing people with distrust, or do they wait until finding out they're specifically Polish? The American form of it is perhaps ignorant in the sense that if you're from south of the border you generally get treated as a "Mexican" regardless of where you're actually from, but it also more accurately reflects how people treat each other; a Guatemalan and a Honduran, at first glance, are going to be treated effectively the same way. Is that "worse" or just simpler?
I'm not claiming to have answers here, just sort of throwing out thoughts in hopes of organizing them and discussing it.
I absolutely agree that many Europeans look down on Americans when it comes to racism, and perhaps often unfairly. I believe that this is because you have such obvious and glaring issues that make international news. I remember hearing about Trayvon Martin on Austrian news, you know. Since we are immersed in our racism, which does usually not take as violent forms, I believe it is easy to feel like the US are objectively worse.
I'll even admit that I often feel that the US suffer from problems that weigh much heavier than what we have in Austria. I'm not sure if it can be quantified that way, but it certainly often feels this way.
I want to try to explain how it manifests in Austria, from my obviously not universal experience. First of all, people tend to not be specifically anti-Polish, for example. These situations do occur(after what happened to Yugoslavia, you can sometimes get severe tensions between children of Croatian and Serbian people, for example), but it is much more common to simply have someone be anti-eastern European immigrant. For example a self identified "real Austrian" (with a name that clearly stems from a language other than German) who has strong prejudice against everyone who they identify as "foreigner". This could be based on physical traits, but it also strongly factors in name or accent, for example. There still is a sort of "lumping" together in many situations, but a French, a German and a Polish immigrant to Austria, all having been here for one year, would probably have very different experiences with this "real Austrian", even if they are all incredibly similar physically.
I can assure you that the Polish one is most likely to be told to go back to their country.
EDIT:
Maybe the following doesn't really relate to our conversation, but I wanted to mention it:
Since Austria (well, specifically Vienna) has been a large city with lots of immigration for a long time, you get really odd racism as well. What I'd ironically call "disappointing" racism, because it's so unexpected.
This is a woman who is clearly an immigrant. Her German is rather bad, and she starts ranting about illegal immigrants ruining the country, later switching it up and lamenting how those foreigners get papers, get their family, "Send them all home!". She's then asked if she has citizenship, and respons "Oh, for a long time. My husband is Viennese." She goes on to explain that when SHE came, immigrants were needed, unlike now.
This is an important point when it comes to racism in Austria: You have very racist minorities voting for far-right parties to keep out further immigrants.
You know, maybe this is part of the huge difference. Our countries are smaller, we're all surrounded by "foreigners". Maybe that's why this is more important to many than "race".
Second EDIT:
I really don't want to minimalize how looks are a very important factor for identifying these "foreigners".
It's very much part of the whole equation. Nobody can tell me there is no discrimination against the children of Turkish immigrants based on looks, no matter how they act or talk. I do believe it's getting "better", though. From generation to generation.
Last edited:
You are not way off base. This is the exact same thing people have been arguing throughout this thread in regards to white people in Europe. There are a vast array of ethnicities that would all be considered 'white' through the US racial lens. The fact that you only want to apply race to Western countries or ethnicity to other countries because you don't like the result is the cognitive dissonance I am talking about.
I'm trying real hard not to roll my eyes at people being all "Actually we're more diverse." I understand that cultural and even language diversities are valuable but that's not really the same thing. The differences between and history of the English/Scottish are valuable. But, in the present day, you can drive between England and Scotland.
You have some very weird ideas about diversity. Travel distance and melanin content being more significant than culture and history.
I really don't understand the point here. Are you trying to say that nowadays, there is no real difference English and Scottish culture any more? Because that'd just be woefully ignorant.
Also, who said that anyone is more diverse? I must have missed it, but I absolutely agree that it's not a race.
Thought-provoking discussion, I've enjoyed reading it. The info on how race-based social constructs are viewed in Germany and France was particularly interesting and eye-opening. It is easy to forget how different our cultures really are, threads like these are a good reminder.
I think it's pretty simple: using minority black populations as an example, countries or regions with more black people are going to have more problems with racism against black people because there are more black people to hate, furthermore large minority populations tend to inspire tension and fear in white communities (see white flight). This has lead us to a more pragmatic approach, versus the more idealistic policies of our kin across the Atlantic. Not that we weren't there ourselves not too long ago, and that we aren't still there to some degree, but the divide between Europeans and Americans in this thread on the need for real-world action vs. the importance of color-blind ideals is striking.
Racism inflicted on black people is just going to be less visible and less important to a society with a low black population, by virtue of the fact that the black population itself is less visible and almost certainly less empowered (supported by the low government representation cited in the op). Additionally, with a smaller population I don't think you are going to see the same impact from collective action (I should note this is conjecture, I didn't research this point). Consider the significance of social media in the modern fight against institutionalized racism, it seems to me like it would be much harder to stir the general public to action without a large, dedicated black population at the foundation to ring the bell, every time, and to provide valuable insight on just how common the type of racism in question really is. That is one of the most meaningful parts of a story like the Starbucks story, I think, for a largely ignorant white population: "Dear white people: this happens all the time." I confess that I am now being somewhat idealistic myself, but I think you'd have a hard time arguing that this collective expression amounted to nothing at all in that particular case, or many other recent cases, or that the repetition or volume of that expression isn't significant.
I do think European posters often bring interesting feedback to the subject of racism in America, but I think the perspective the op and many posters in this thread provide for these discussions is valuable. The way the murder of black people by our police has been repeatedly referenced in this thread is a good example of a serious - and sensitive - American race issue that (most of) the European posters who mentioned it should maybe think a little more about before lobbing it out there. Maybe I'm off base, but I feel this is exactly the sort of thing op is talking about. Do you really think your cops are less racist, or do they just have less guns and less corruption in their power structures? It is the combination of these ingredients that is deadly. The fact that you are missing one or two doesn't mean you don't have the other problem: institutionalized discrimination based on skin color, not ethnicity. Let's just say I'm skeptical that this isn't a problem in these countries.
I think it's pretty simple: using minority black populations as an example, countries or regions with more black people are going to have more problems with racism against black people because there are more black people to hate, furthermore large minority populations tend to inspire tension and fear in white communities (see white flight). This has lead us to a more pragmatic approach, versus the more idealistic policies of our kin across the Atlantic. Not that we weren't there ourselves not too long ago, and that we aren't still there to some degree, but the divide between Europeans and Americans in this thread on the need for real-world action vs. the importance of color-blind ideals is striking.
Racism inflicted on black people is just going to be less visible and less important to a society with a low black population, by virtue of the fact that the black population itself is less visible and almost certainly less empowered (supported by the low government representation cited in the op). Additionally, with a smaller population I don't think you are going to see the same impact from collective action (I should note this is conjecture, I didn't research this point). Consider the significance of social media in the modern fight against institutionalized racism, it seems to me like it would be much harder to stir the general public to action without a large, dedicated black population at the foundation to ring the bell, every time, and to provide valuable insight on just how common the type of racism in question really is. That is one of the most meaningful parts of a story like the Starbucks story, I think, for a largely ignorant white population: "Dear white people: this happens all the time." I confess that I am now being somewhat idealistic myself, but I think you'd have a hard time arguing that this collective expression amounted to nothing at all in that particular case, or many other recent cases, or that the repetition or volume of that expression isn't significant.
I do think European posters often bring interesting feedback to the subject of racism in America, but I think the perspective the op and many posters in this thread provide for these discussions is valuable. The way the murder of black people by our police has been repeatedly referenced in this thread is a good example of a serious - and sensitive - American race issue that (most of) the European posters who mentioned it should maybe think a little more about before lobbing it out there. Maybe I'm off base, but I feel this is exactly the sort of thing op is talking about. Do you really think your cops are less racist, or do they just have less guns and less corruption in their power structures? It is the combination of these ingredients that is deadly. The fact that you are missing one or two doesn't mean you don't have the other problem: institutionalized discrimination based on skin color, not ethnicity. Let's just say I'm skeptical that this isn't a problem in these countries.
I'm just going to take that part of your post and use it to show how different things can be between race relation in Europe (France in that exemple) and in the US.
During the election last year we've got a map of far right voters, showing where their stronghold are:
Basically the more blue it is, the more far right voter there is.
What's noticeable is that the big white spots are all coming from big metropolitan area (except for maybe Marseille and Nice). Those are the area where black and brown people are most prominent and where most of the french population is. I thing it's possible to read it in two ways. Either interaction with minorities help reduce racism and xenophobia or racism and xenophobia are created with a combination of social and financial dissaray (The rural population often feels left out by the state in favor of cities) and media creating a sense of fear in those people. The less they interact, the more they're going to believe the narrative fed to them.
Being I'm a human and people in other countries are human then yes I can criticise if I feel I want to. There is only 1 Race. 1 Single Race of Sentient Bipedal Cocksucking Motherfuckers and that is us. Saying we can't criticise others Countries is just more division. All we ever do is divide. Divide and separate and divide some more. So little old me sitting in Scotland can and will criticise America. You are free to criticise Scotland. We are both only humans and will be dead soon anyway. On a cosmic scale I mean - every human life is insignificantly short.
Why not? Americans like to lord their viewpoints all the time to the rest of the world, why can't the rest of the world do the same to the Americans?
What I'm trying saying is that Western countries are the among the few countries that can facilitate immigration and diversity (primarily due to their colonial history and the such), because their economies and governments are relatively stable, and the economy is always growing. Other countries on the margin are not able to stable enough to have immigration, and thus a relatively racial homogenous (And racist policies do exist in some countries). So it's not adequate to judge countries on the margin based on the criteria of diversity, because the context is different.
I generally agree with what your saying.
Id say melanin is the big one. In canada we call it visible minority, and its pretty much the only gauge for diversity.
Yeah you could argue that stormfront has a pretry diverse community... What with all the different languages and all. But its not the same thing you know?
Jesus christ just sit down somewhere.
Create a thread questioning other countries' right to criticise race relations in the US. Display a stunning ignorance of race relations in other countries.
How do you not mention Canada, tge number one US hater on Earth
Also the first country to study multiculturalism and implement it. Were the only country on EARTH which allows provinces (quebec) to leave.
That is because we studied multiculturalism which is the study of how to organize multiple cultures, ethnicities, and races.
And this started with Kymlicka and at that time we were like 90% white. However there was the distinction between anglo and Franco's which Kymlicka focused on.
Also the first country to study multiculturalism and implement it. Were the only country on EARTH which allows provinces (quebec) to leave.
That is because we studied multiculturalism which is the study of how to organize multiple cultures, ethnicities, and races.
And this started with Kymlicka and at that time we were like 90% white. However there was the distinction between anglo and Franco's which Kymlicka focused on.
OP
OP
I like this post.
This is another good point, I'd be interested if you could expand more on Canada's implementation on multiculturalism and diversity.
I don't know if I "can", but I absolutely will, as an individual. If my country hypothetically had problems of it's own in this matter, it wouldn't even begin to be a thing that would prevent me from criticizing other countries with similar problems of lesser and greater scale. I can critisize them all.
I understand what you mean, I really do - my argument is just that in european countries, that "global social construct" is absolutely not what humans use over here to socially organize themselves. This is shown by the mere fact that by what counts as white in the "global social construct" is utterly fractured here, and includes groups that have vicious, dehumanizing prejudice towards other groups in that same category that makes pro-slavery republicans look nice.
At the same time, groups that are facing massive prejudice - such as jews - strongly resist race-based categorizations over here.
I genuinely do not understand why you feel it would be helpful to apply American categories (that you feel are global, but we feel really aren't) against the wishes of the groups it'd categorize in ways that makes these very groups deeply uncomfortable and scared. I just find it baffling.
BossAttack I really don't want to come off as rude or anything, but there are some problems with your OP I'd like to adress.
First of all the diversity in Europe and it's countries isn't as bad as you want it to make here. A lot of people don't get tracked, I think this has been pointed out to you already but still. That 2.4% Turks in Germany for example is laughably low and false. Just an example, I live in Cologne, where theres even something called "little Istanbul", and it's not the only area where the residents are like 90% of turkish origin. My best friends are from Korea, Singapore, Turkey, Ghana, Portugal, Spain and a few from Germany. Most of them live 15 minutes away by feet or less. All of them count as Germans that have been living here since birth, not "PoC" or anything else. You would probably call 50% of them "white". They aren't.
The fact we have so many cultures and languages in Europe alone makes that diversity argument invalid.
Then you wanting to have Europeans look at American racism issues trhough the perspective of an American while you yourself just go ahead and look at European racism issues through an American perspective is really, really flawed.
A lot of racism in Europe is nationality based. People that voted for Brexit don't just hate muslims, they also hate "white" people from Poland or anyone from that region. I remember a report about a German family being bullied out of her neighbourhood in the UK after brexit was happening. I think someone else called it Intra-white racism, and I'm pretty sure you had no idea that this is even a thing.
I won't say there is no racism in Europe based on skin colour at all, my stepfather for example had problems being black especially in East-Germany, but it's not the biggest factor.
First of all the diversity in Europe and it's countries isn't as bad as you want it to make here. A lot of people don't get tracked, I think this has been pointed out to you already but still. That 2.4% Turks in Germany for example is laughably low and false. Just an example, I live in Cologne, where theres even something called "little Istanbul", and it's not the only area where the residents are like 90% of turkish origin. My best friends are from Korea, Singapore, Turkey, Ghana, Portugal, Spain and a few from Germany. Most of them live 15 minutes away by feet or less. All of them count as Germans that have been living here since birth, not "PoC" or anything else. You would probably call 50% of them "white". They aren't.
The fact we have so many cultures and languages in Europe alone makes that diversity argument invalid.
Then you wanting to have Europeans look at American racism issues trhough the perspective of an American while you yourself just go ahead and look at European racism issues through an American perspective is really, really flawed.
A lot of racism in Europe is nationality based. People that voted for Brexit don't just hate muslims, they also hate "white" people from Poland or anyone from that region. I remember a report about a German family being bullied out of her neighbourhood in the UK after brexit was happening. I think someone else called it Intra-white racism, and I'm pretty sure you had no idea that this is even a thing.
I won't say there is no racism in Europe based on skin colour at all, my stepfather for example had problems being black especially in East-Germany, but it's not the biggest factor.
While I agree with some of your points, I'm a bit perplexed by the specific part I quoted.
Large minority populations in any part often inspire fear and tensions. "White Flight" is kinda a bs term. If you swap the US example, for another country. It may well be white people causing fear and tension. Your statement is sound as it relates to the US, but fear of minorities worldwide is hardly a "white" thing.
Europe is ass at multiculturalism. France's 'ghetto'ization of muslim minorities for instance has directly led to the problems it faces with terrorism today.
Canada on the other hand, though i am no expert, has learned through multicultural scholarship. Things like the difference between national and ethnic minorities (those who were a part of the nations founding versus those volunteered to come over) are taken into account. Canada has three national minorities, francophones, anglophones, and aboriginals. Things like making sure we dont create ghettos for minorities but actively push for them to assimilate. Things like our tough to get into immigration system. etc
Honestly, if youre interested just read Will Kymlicka's 1995 Multicultural Citizenship. Hes and awful writer who back pedals his good ideas occasionally so keep that in mind.
This is an interesting example to use because it shows the flaws in both sides argument quite well
The woman from El Salvador clearly felt comfortable enough to say the "no one will care because you are black" slur in public, that demonstrates that there is a level of racism that exists (and is maybe even tolerated in Spain) which is unnaceptable.
However it also shows the difference between in how race is perceived in the US, because they are essentially treating a migrant from El Salvador and a Spanish person as "Hispanic" and basically the same, whereas in Europe that would be seen as ridiculous
I agree with this
The notion that Europe is all just "white" ignores a whole load of history, and the fact that up until WW2 the various countries of Europe were p much always killing each other, and on the one hand accuses an entire continent of being somehow backward, while also viewing them through a very uniquely american perspective
I am a white person who grew up in the UK with a German mother and a British father, many people here would consider me less British than a black or asian family who have been here for 2 or 3 generations
And frankly, I also find it a bit odd that there is a tone that race relations in Europe could be improved if we did things more like they do in the US. Europe definitely has its problems, but it doesn't strike me that the US is dealing with theirs very well at the moment at all either
I don't have anything useful to add and it is not limited to this topic, but we Euros honestly love doing this, even if it's totally off-base. It seems like that's our designated role to play in the eternal US-Europe internet debate dance
I'll admit I was off base somewhat with my earlier comment, but I do wanna come back to say yes it absolutely does stand out to us.
Like, when I see some ERA members go off about "America, get your shit together" it makes me laugh. Most black people don't get shot at on a daily basis. It shouldn't happen at all, but those are the extreme cases. Most of the time we're dealing with more subtle racism, institutional and "microaggressions" and what have you. So when we (or at least I) see European people act like America's just totally fucked but their countries are great, it doesn't line up with what I've heard WRT to how black people are often treated in other countries.
It's not just Europe. Asian countries have the same issue, though there are other factors to consider there.
who in this thread is arguing that there is no racism in europe?
if anything people are educating OP that there is more to diversity and racism than the color of skin. our racism is mostly aimed at minorities who happen to have white skin, and it's the very same subtle racism, institutional an microagressions and whatever.
if you would argue that racism was only possible against people with a different color of skin then there would be little racism in europe. but that is precisely the point we are not making.
so this post will veer a bit off-topic, but we sort of unanimously decided globally that Americans are the butt of every joke and this extends to the real world as well. I'm not making this up
on the internet, this phenomenon reaches far beyond Era. The Americans (usually by far the biggest group on most sites) are assigned the role of the misguided oaf, and we enlightened foreigners get to lecture you on every aspect of your lives. It's the age old two-man act, I wouldn't have it any other way. We don't admit to being wrong about anything, ever
Hello, I am from the Europe. Can confirm that our neuro-network of sync-ness has deemed the quoted post to be on point.
