WICKED wrote:sweden is not so racist from what ive read about them. finland is probably another one who is good.
It's easy for racism to disappear when a country is over 95% the same race.
WICKED wrote:one way to gauge the racism of a country is to see how they do in terms of other human rights such as womens rights, gay rights, how much they help the homeless or disabled.
How does that even possibly follow? Communist states tend to do very well in terms of social welfare, but many of them (i.e. the Soviet Union) were rife with anti-Semitism.
WICKED wrote:as you can see, america really doesnt do anything for these groups, so you can see why they would be one of the more racist countries. most european countries are less racist than usa. in europe, people know that racism is wrong (even if they are racists), whereas in usa, they see it as freedom of speech.
Oh, you're just leading into another anti-American tirade. One with absolutely no grounding in reality.
The US doesn't have government-based social welfare because we're largely an anti-government lot. We started the damn country to get out of paying taxes, and since then we've been slow to adopt the cradle-to-grave welfare systems popular in Europe. And yet, judging by the direct evidence, we're probably much less racist than many welfare states, including those in Europe. We're certainly more sensitive towards, and conscious of, racial issues than Europeans because of our long history in struggling with the issue.
Freedom of speech is another issue entirely. European countries tend to ban racist expression for the following reasons:
1. European countries have always had an authoritarian bent.
2. European countries were extremely cautious after WWII to prevent Nazis (in particular) from showing up again.
Something can be wrong while still being a legitimate exercise of one's legal and constitutional rights--a concept that's usually lost on authoritarian-minded Europeans.
Censorship is an ineffective and unjust response to racism. It's ineffective because you can't change people's opinions by prohibiting them from being expressed, and it's unjust because it involves using force on someone just for expressing a belief.
Also, censorship can so easily be misused that it's better for a society to disallow censorship entirely rather than try to discriminate between good and bad applications of it. For instance, while you *could* outlaw expressions of racism, celebrity gossip, false rumors, and half-baked myths about the contraceptive properties of lemon juice, the benefits of doing so are outweighed by the risks of the government outlawing people from campaigning for an opposition political candidate or using censorship to cover up its own mistakes.
Just because American law falls on the "less censorship" end of the scale doesn't mean American culture is any more supportive of racism, no more than it suggests Americans are more supportive of socialism, anarchism, or the cryptic spiritual expressions printed on the labels of Dr. Bronner's soap.
Lucrece wrote:Even the poorest of Europeans are used to traveling across countries and visiting due to the evil socialist systems that allow them actual vacations and sane working hours.
If you compare apples to apples, I'm sure the number of French people who've visited England and Germany is similar to the number of Arizonans who have visited Texas and Mexico. Or the number of Washingtonians who have visited Canada and California.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.
Perfection is an unattainable goal.