Which is more racist/xenophobic? Europe/Australia or USA?

[minionofmidas]

In so far as that makes sense, Europe is more xenobhobic than the USA while America is more racist. Australia is infinitely more like America than like Europe in these things, of course, and all this is of course utterly self-evident given the history of America and Australia as racist settler colonies.

That's what I was thinking also. I've always figured that Australia was the country most like the US culturally than any other (even more so than Canada).

Though those two are in turn more alike to each other than to the US.

[Franknburger]

As to xenophobia / racism in Germany, patterns are pretty weird and hardly comparable to the USA.

First, there have been periods of xenophobia that were triggered by political events - anti-French sentiments in the West (Napoleonic wars, 1870/71 German-French war, French occupation of the Rhineland in the 1920s, etc.); anti-Danish sentiments after the 1866 German-Danish war and the post-WW I cession of Northern Schleswig to Denmark, anti-Polish sentiments following the post-WW II displacement of ethnic Germans, etc. In a way, the more recent wave of xenophobia in parts of the former GDR may also fit this category - after unification, part of the former GDR's population felt alienated and socially disintegrated by the West, and projected their aggression on foreigners.

Secondly, there has undoubtedly been a lingering streak of resentment towards "others", which became apparent in the Nazi's prosecution of Jews and Roma. However, neither xenophobia nor racism are describing this resentment adequately, since the Jews (at least those living inside Germany) were, and identified themselves as, (white) Germans. In the case of the Jews, it was mostly religious intolerance (which also showed up in common conflicts between Protestants and Catholics), combined with social envy.
The Roma case is a bit more complicated. So-called "Landfahrer" (country travellers), which included Roma, but also "Germans", were traditionally associated with petty crimes (it is always easier to blame crimes on 'travellers' than acknowledging that something is wrong inside the village community). Initial legal discrimination, which started after WW I, was mostly geared against "Landfahrer" in general, but left resident Roma untouched. When the Nazis started to prosecute Romas, they primarily justified it as part of their "law & order" policies (note that convicted criminals were put into concentration camps alongside with political opponents and Jews). The Nuremberg racial laws initially only forbade marriage between Jews and non-Jews, and were only subsequently extended on Roma and Negros. This indicates that, while there may have been some latent racism and xenophobia in the German population, the Nazi leadership did not feel it to be sufficient to justify prosecution of Roma.

Thirdly, German attitude towards foreign cultures and ethnic groups has mostly been positive, regarding them as exotic, and projection screen for phantasies of a 'different life'. Such attitude was, among others, brought forward by Alexander von Humboldt, 19th century best-selling authors like Karl May and Emily Ruete (the Princess from Zanzibar), and various early 20th century travel reports including those by Sven Hedin. The Turkish Empire being a major German ally before and during WW I helped to form a positive view on Islam. The pro-Islam attitude continued under the Nazis, which regarded Muslims as potential allies against the British (enforced by strong local support during the war in North Africa) as well as against Jews. It is also worth noting in this respect that coloured Germans, while suffering discrimination, where not prosecuted by the Nazis.

Finally, strong immigration in the 1970s and 1980s has brought up a pattern of xenophobia and racism that may to some extent be comparable to the US. Foreign, especially Turkish, but more recently also Russian, 'ghettos' have evolved in several larger cities (e.g. Neukölln in Berlin, Wilhelmsburg in Hamburg, parts of Duisburg). These quarters tend to be characterised by high unemployment, in particular of youths, serious problems within public schools, and above-average criminality - much to the distaste of many of the Germans that are still living there (especially seniors and low-educated, which themselves are marginalised as well). Moreover, 1980s political wisdom led Germany to combine liberal asylum policies with highly restrictive employment policies for asylum seekers, forcing them into illegal occupations. This has formed the base for stereotypes such as the "Ghanaian dope dealer" or the "Albanian gambling mafia" .  However, while I haven't followed polling in this respect, I feel such attitudes and stereotypes are gradually losing relevance, not at last due to football players like Mesut Özil, Sami Khedira, Jerome Boateng or Lukas Podolski proving the benefits of immigration and integration to the 'man on the street'.

[Platypus]

Australia should absolutely not be linked with Europe in this poll. Either have separate entries or link us with other settled nations.

I'd say that they all break down really pretty evenly, with different areas of racism and also different areas of inclusivity. The real winners would be New Zealand, followed by Canada. It's also not helpful that Europe is a big and diverse place, but their commonality -  being 'heritage' nations -  should be the determiner of wehere the split is.

[Mechaman]

I guess I just get pissed off when I hear Europeans imply that America is some sort of racist backwater...do you guys really think Obama's story would be possible in any country in Europe or in Australia?

To answer this question specifically: Obama's story is possible entirely because he isn't a typical African American. While I don't claim most European countries will be electing any (racial) minority head of government any time soon, one should remember that America elected a man with black skin that happens to be culturally white in pretty much every way. (And that by 7% after the crash of 2008. Not that that itself makes a difference, but we should keep things in perspective.)

I think Obama would have won even if the crash didn't happen. By a smaller margin, of course, and a smaller margin than what Hillary would have managed, but he would have won. I don't think you can say that in any European nation, the son of an immigrant could become President/Prime Minister. I also wouldn't say that Obama is culturally "white", but that brings up an interesting point.

There is a close interplay of race and class in America, especially with regard to AA's. I wouldn't say Obama was acting white, he just wasn't acting like how we expect AA's to act (and this isn't just how whites see it, but also how many AA's see it, thus the common insult, "acting white"). A person who fits all those stereotypes could not become President, no. I also don't think a person acting like an uneducated redneck could become President. Still, if we look at how much overt and shocking racism occurs in America vs Europe, there is no comparison. Just look at the racism you see at soccer games. You don't see that in any organized sport in America.

Uh, Sbane, we actually had an uneducated redneck as President five years ago.

Haha, true. Though I was thinking of more of a stereotypical figure than Bush. In any case, no one like him is becoming President any time soon.

And let's be real honest, as bad of a president as Bush was he wasn't uneducated.  The man had an MBA from Harvard.
And really, the whole "Bush was stupid" meme is being too nice to the guy.  He was something much worse: incompetent.

Just saying.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I guess I just get pissed off when I hear Europeans imply that America is some sort of racist backwater...do you guys really think Obama's story would be possible in any country in Europe or in Australia?

To answer this question specifically: Obama's story is possible entirely because he isn't a typical African American. While I don't claim most European countries will be electing any (racial) minority head of government any time soon, one should remember that America elected a man with black skin that happens to be culturally white in pretty much every way. (And that by 7% after the crash of 2008. Not that that itself makes a difference, but we should keep things in perspective.)

I think Obama would have won even if the crash didn't happen. By a smaller margin, of course, and a smaller margin than what Hillary would have managed, but he would have won. I don't think you can say that in any European nation, the son of an immigrant could become President/Prime Minister. I also wouldn't say that Obama is culturally "white", but that brings up an interesting point.

There is a close interplay of race and class in America, especially with regard to AA's. I wouldn't say Obama was acting white, he just wasn't acting like how we expect AA's to act (and this isn't just how whites see it, but also how many AA's see it, thus the common insult, "acting white"). A person who fits all those stereotypes could not become President, no. I also don't think a person acting like an uneducated redneck could become President. Still, if we look at how much overt and shocking racism occurs in America vs Europe, there is no comparison. Just look at the racism you see at soccer games. You don't see that in any organized sport in America.

Uh, Sbane, we actually had an uneducated redneck as President five years ago.

..who happened to be from an incredibly privileged and influential WASP family.

[Hatman 🍁]

Australia should absolutely not be linked with Europe in this poll. Either have separate entries or link us with other settled nations.

I'd say that they all break down really pretty evenly, with different areas of racism and also different areas of inclusivity. The real winners would be New Zealand, followed by Canada. It's also not helpful that Europe is a big and diverse place, but their commonality -  being 'heritage' nations -  should be the determiner of wehere the split is.

Are you saying NZ is the least racist, followed by Canada?

Maybe... Canadians are racist in a different way than anywhere else. It's very non PC to bring it up in public, but people do have racist opinions. And this whole 'Idle No More' movement was interesting in revealing some people's prejudices, but more along the lines of "my grandmother was an Indian, but you don't see me complaining!"  A lot of white people in places like Vancouver or Toronto claim to be visible minorities because they're white... that might be a form of racism. And, Alberta is a pretty racist place, as is rural Ontario. And Quebecers are xenophobic in the European sense (liberal views but anti-immigration).

[Sbane]

Australia should absolutely not be linked with Europe in this poll. Either have separate entries or link us with other settled nations.

I'd say that they all break down really pretty evenly, with different areas of racism and also different areas of inclusivity. The real winners would be New Zealand, followed by Canada. It's also not helpful that Europe is a big and diverse place, but their commonality -  being 'heritage' nations -  should be the determiner of wehere the split is.

I was unsure whether to include Australia in the poll or not. I wouldn't quite put New Zealand and Canada with Australia though. Australia, at least anecdotally, seems to get lower marks from non-whites than either Canada or New Zealand. And this is not even from Africans or even Indians, but from East Asians. Hearing things like "go home", which is a complete culture shock coming from Socal (or were they telling her to go back to California ). That is something I really did not expect from Australia, which like the United States is made up of immigrants (and many East Asian immigrants too).

I wonder though, how much of racism is just expressed in private in the United States. Though one thing to consider is that even though privately expressed racism doesn't make you a better person, it makes the life of non-whites easier.

[Lief 🗽]

Institutional racism is much more pervasive in the United States than in Europe. Casual xenophobia/racism is much more acceptable in (most of) Europe.

[Sbane]

I don't think you can say that in any European nation, the son of an immigrant could become President/Prime Minister.

Regarding that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy

Wait a second....aren't France and Greece in the same country?

As for the other examples presented, it's easier for non-whites to get into parliament or the cabinet as opposed to winning a vote to be the leader of the country.

[Хahar 🤔]

I don't think you can say that in any European nation, the son of an immigrant could become President/Prime Minister.

Australia has gone even farther than that.  The Prime Minister isn't just the daughter of immigrants, she *is* an immigrant!  

The Opposition Leader is too

Weren't Abbott's parents Australian citizens who were living in the UK at the time?  If so, then I'd guess he would have been an Australian citizen at birth, and his situation would be analogous to that of John McCain or George Romney.  I don't know that such people would qualify as "immigrants" by any straightforward definition of the term.

Gillard, OTOH, was simply a UK citizen who immigrated with her family when she was young.  She would then count as an "immigrant", one would assume.

I don't think that's comparable. It's not as though British immigrants have ever had any trouble being accepted into Australian society.

[Nhoj]

What about the leader of the Green party in Germany? He's Turkish, and he might be part of the winning coalition.

FDP head Rösler is Vietnamese and is currently Vice-Chancellor[of course the FDP wont be much of a voice soon, but its not terribly likely red-green is going to happen either.]

[Mr. Morden]

I don't think you can say that in any European nation, the son of an immigrant could become President/Prime Minister.

Australia has gone even farther than that.  The Prime Minister isn't just the daughter of immigrants, she *is* an immigrant!  

The Opposition Leader is too

Weren't Abbott's parents Australian citizens who were living in the UK at the time?  If so, then I'd guess he would have been an Australian citizen at birth, and his situation would be analogous to that of John McCain or George Romney.  I don't know that such people would qualify as "immigrants" by any straightforward definition of the term.

Gillard, OTOH, was simply a UK citizen who immigrated with her family when she was young.  She would then count as an "immigrant", one would assume.

I don't think that's comparable. It's not as though British immigrants have ever had any trouble being accepted into Australian society.

Of course it's not comparable, that's why I included a in my initial post.

My point was that Gillard is an immigrant, but that not all immigrants are viewed the same way.

[Insula Dei]

I don't think you can say that in any European nation, the son of an immigrant could become President/Prime Minister.

Regarding that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy

Europeans are relatively fine with wealthy immigrants. It's only the poor that pose a problem.

Elio Di Rupo was most certainly not born into wealth and privilege.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

It depends on a lot of factors, such as who the racism or xenophobia is directed against.

[LastVoter]

What about the leader of the Green party in Germany? He's Turkish, and he might be part of the winning coalition.

FDP head Rösler is Vietnamese and is currently Vice-Chancellor[of course the FDP wont be much of a voice soon, but its not terribly likely red-green is going to happen either.]

Well my point is that if some ecological catastrophe happens in Germany we could get a Green-Red.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't think you can say that in any European nation, the son of an immigrant could become President/Prime Minister.

Regarding that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy

Europeans are relatively fine with wealthy immigrants. It's only the poor that pose a problem.

Elio Di Rupo was most certainly not born into wealth and privilege.

Oh, Western Europe certainly has made great progresses with regard to the acceptance of West European immigrants. That's undeniable. If you look back to half a century ago, being Italian in France wasn't exactly well-regarded, now it's not really a problem. One can hope the same will happen to East Europeans, Arabs and all the others, eventually.